Venu Gopal Naredla Venugopal ... vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2076 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.3572 OF 2021
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner/A.1 to quash the order dated 28.12.2020 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2020 in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2020 in Cr.No.218

of 2020 of Ameenpur Police Station by the learned I Additional

District and Sessions Judge at Medak at Sangareddy. The

petitioner is A.1 in the said crime. The offences alleged against

the petitioner herein/A.1 and A.2 and A.3 are under Sections

376(3), 342, 323, 328, 506 and 109 of IPC, and under Section

5(1) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences) Act, 2012 (for short, 'the Act')

2. Heard Sri GVNRSSS Varaprasad, learned counsel for

the petitioner herein/A.1 and learned Public Prosecutor and

perused the record.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3.i) The allegations against the petitioner herein are that

the parents of the victim were passed away in her childhood.

Therefore her uncle joined the victim in 'Maruthi Orphanage' in

the year 2015. A.2 and A.3 are the founders of the said

Orphanage. A.1 is regular donor to the said Orphanage. About

one year back, A.2 and A.3 had sent the victim into a room to

5th floor of the building to meet A.1, where he gave her a drink

(juice), after consuming the same, the victim went into KL,J

unconscious state when A.1 misbehaved with her. When she

became conscious, she noticed that she was naked. When she

informed the same to A.2 and A.3, they threatened her not to

reveal the matter to anyone.

ii) Whenever A.1 comes to the Orphanage, A.2 and A.3 used

to threaten her to sleep with A.1 and sent her to 5th floor. The

victim noticed many times that A.1 used to give money to A.2

and A.3.

iii) One day as usual A.1 took her to her room and after

some time he went off. Her friends who are staying in the

Orphanage, saw her naked and in unconscious state. When she

wanted to go to her house, A.2 and A.3 did not allow her. On her

informing the same to her sister on phone, her brother-in-law

took her to their home. After reaching home, she became sick

and was taken to the hospital where doctors, after medical

examination, advised to take her to Police Station, where the

police registered a case in Cr.No. 218 of 2020 for the aforesaid

offences.

iv) During the course of investigation, as the victim became

sick, she was admitted in Niloufer hospital, on 07.08.2020 and

later she went into coma and died on 12.08.2020.

v) The petitioner herein/A.1 and A.2 and A.3 have filed an

application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.651

of 2020 in Cr.No.218 of 2020 seeking regular bail before learned

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

and the said Court vide order dated 27.10.2020 granted bail to KL,J

the petitioner herein/A.1 and A.2 and A.3 on the following

grounds:-

a) There is no question of interference by the accused in the investigation.

b) The Investigating Officer has completed investigation in Cr.No.218 of 2020 and submitted the draft charge sheet to the Public Prosecutor who has received the same and finalized.

c) Relevant witnesses were also examined.

d) Accused were in remand for a period of 82 days.

e) Guilt or innocence of the petitioner is the matter of trial.

f) The Court below has granted bail to the petitioner herein and other accused on the said grounds.

4. The prosecution has filed a petition under Section

439(2) of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2020 in Crl.M.P.

No.651 of 2020 in Cr.No.218 of 2020 seeking cancellation of the

said bail granted to the accused vide order dated 27.10.2020 on

the following grounds:-

i) A.1 to A.3 are charged under Section 5(1) read with 6 of the Act, and there is a statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act, which clearly states that for the offences committed under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such persons have committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.

ii) The Investigating Officer (L.W.50) has obtained opinion of Expert-L.W.39-Dr.Sudha, Assistant Professor, who, basing on the reports of the inquest, FSL, PME and treatment of the victim/deceased, had opined that the cause of death of the victim/deceased girl was due to urosepsis and Cerebellar infraction consequent to drug facilitated (aggravated) sexual assault.

KL,J

iii) The allegations against the accused are serious in nature where on account of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, it has resulted in her death.

iv) The witnesses of the Orphanage are of tender age and if the accused are on bail, there is every possibility of putting them under fear, thereby denying a free and fair trial and as per the provisions of the Act, rights of the victim and witnesses should be protected against any kind of intimidation or coercion or inducement or violence or threat of violence, which can be done only if the accused are denied bail during the course of trial.

5. As stated above, the Court below vide order dated

28.12.2020 cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner

herein/A.1 and other accused on the following grounds. :-

i) As per the record, statements of the victim and other inmates of the Orphanage and medical opinion clearly shows prima facie involvement of the accused in the present crime.

ii) Victim died during the course of investigation.

iii) The deceased died due to urosepsis and Cerebellar infraction consequent to drug facilitated (aggravated) sexual assault.

iv) L.w.39-Assistant Professor, basing on the reports of inquest, FSL, PME and treatment of record of the victim, gave said opinion but while granting bail to the accused, there was a spread of pandemic of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and there was no possibility of conducting physical hearing of the cases by fixing the schedule but now the physical hearing is also started and the medical evidence and gravity of the offences was not brought to the notice of the Court while granting bail. Having considered the prima facie evidence against the accused and their involvement, the Court has cancelled the bail.

KL,J

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, dated 28.12.2020,

the petitioner herein/A.1 in Cr.No.218 of 2020 filed present

Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the

same on the following grounds:-

i) The Court below has granted bail to the petitioner herein vide order dated 27.10.2020 by considering the fact that the Investigating Officer has completed investigation, submitted draft charge sheet to the Public Prosecutor for finalization and that the Public Prosecutor has already finalized the same.

ii) The petitioner herein/A.1 was in remand for 82 days.

iii) The Court below, while granting bail, has considered death of the victim i.e. dated 12.08.2020, medical evidence and statements of inmates of the victim (orphan).

iv) The Court below, while considering the entire facts, granted bail to the petitioner and there is no error in it.

v) The grounds on which the prosecution sought to cancel bail are untenable.

vi) The Court below has considered all the said grounds on which the prosecution sought cancellation of bail while granting bail.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed

reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

and other High Courts, to consider the factors while canceling

bail granted to the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed

the present application contending that the victim died during

the course of investigation. All the witnesses are inmates of the

said Orphanage and they are orphans. The petitioner herein/A.1 KL,J

and other accused are financially and politically sound and

there is every possibility of influencing and threatening the

witnesses. In which case, there would not be a fair trial. The

Court below considering the seriousness of the offences and

other aspects, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner herein

vide impugned order in which there is no error.

9.With the said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor

sought to dismiss the present petition.

10. A perusal of the entire material would reveal that the

petitioner herein is accused No.1 in Cr.No.218 of 2020. The

offences alleged against the petitioner herein/A.1 are under

Sections 376(3), 342, 323, 328, 506 and 109 of IPC, and under

Section 5(1) read with 6 of the Act. The allegations against the

petitioner herein/A.1 are that he is donor to the said 'Maruthi

Orphanage' which was founded by A.2 and A.3 and on the said

pretext, A.1 used to visit the said 'Maruthi Orphanage' and with

the help of A.2 and A.3, used to sexually assault on the victim

who is a minor and orphan. The modus operandi adopted by A.1

is also specifically mentioned therein. He used to give drink

(juice) to the victim and used to commit sexual assault on her

when she was in unconscious state. During the course of

investigation, the victim died. There is also an allegation that the

A.1 used to pay money to A.2 and A.3 whenever he visits to the

said Orphanage. The victim has given her statement specifically

to the said effect. According to this Court it is a 'heinous crime'.

KL,J

11.During the course of arguments, it is brought to the

notice of this Court that the Investigating Officer has already

filed charge sheet in Cr.No.218 of 2020 and the same was taken

on file vide S.C.No.126 of 2020. The Court below has fixed

schedule from 19.07.2021 onwards.

12. Since the lis involved in the present Criminal Petition is

for cancellation of bail, it is relevant to mention the factors that

are to be considered while granting bail and while canceling bail

granted to the accused. The said lis is no more res integra.

13. The Apex Court in Dr. Narendra K. Amin v. State of

Gujarat1, the Apex Court laid certain guidelines for cancellation

of bail. It also held that once bail granted can be cancelled only

on the complaint that the accused has violated the conditions

imposed by the Court while granting the bail. The bail once

granted cannot be cancelled on flimsy grounds and the Court

has to specifically mention the reasons for cancellation of bail.

14. The Apex Court in Abdul Basit Vs. Mohd. Abdul

Kadir Chaudhary2 had an occasion to deal with Section 439 (2)

of Cr.P.C. and also the powers of the High Courts and Sessions

Courts for cancellation of bail and held that since there is no

express provision for review of order granting bail exists under

the Cr.P.C., the High Court becomes functus officio and Section

362 of Cr.P.C. applies herein barring the review of the judgment

and order of the Court granting bail to the accused. Even though

the cancellation of bail rides on the satisfaction and discretion of

2009 (3) SCC (Crl.) 813

(2014) 10 SCC 754 KL,J

the Court under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. It does not vest the

power of review in the Court which granted bail. Even in the

light of fact of misrepresentation by the accused during the

grant of bail, the High Court could not have entertained the

informant's prayer by sitting in review of its judgment by

entertaining miscellaneous petition. With the said findings, the

Apex Court has set aside the order of cancellation passed by the

High Court.

15. In Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana3, the Apex Court

held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial

stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, have to be

considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and

overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order

directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally

speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly

(illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to

interfere with the due course of administration of justice or

evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of

the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The

satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the

record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another

reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once

granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner

without considering whether any supervening circumstances

have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the

(1995) 1 SCC 349 KL,J

accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail

during the trial.

16. In Janapala Krishna Vs. State of A.P.4, the High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and

the State of Andhra Pradesh held that the remedy challenging

the order of cancellation of bail is to move an application under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

17. In V.Chinna Reddy Vs. N.Vidyasagar Reddy5, the

High Court of A.P., had an occasion to deal with the scope and

ambit of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., and held that the Sessions

Court or High Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of

cancellation under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. at its whims and

fancy. It can cancel only on specific grounds that the accused

has committed misconduct or misuse of the terms of the bail or

that the accused is trying to abscond after the charge-sheet is

filed or threatening or influencing or tampering with the

evidence or interfering with the investigation or obstructing the

judicial process or otherwise misusing or abusing the bail. The

fact that the Magistrate is committing the accused to Sessions

Court for trial does not from a valid ground for the Sessions

Judge of the High Court to remand the accused to custody, as it

does not constitute a ground for cancellation of bail which was

already granted. The cancellation of bail can only be on the

ground known to law.

(2015) 1 ALD (Crl) 409

1982 Crl.LJ 2183 KL,J

18. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P.6, the Apex Court

held as follows:

"It is a well-settled principle of law that while dealing with an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. The decision in Rajballav Prasad emphasises that while the liberty of the subject is an important consideration, the public interest in the proper administration of criminal justice is equally important: "...undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of accused persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations."

19. In Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan7, the Apex

Court had an occasion to deal with the powers of the Court of

AIR 2015 SC 3703 KL,J

Sessions and also High Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.,

and held as follows:

"Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court."

20. In Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs.

Subramani Gopalakrishnan8, the Apex Court held as follows:

"It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words,

2012 (12) SCC 180

(2011) 5 SCC 296 KL,J

bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."

21. The Apex Court, in Ms.X Vs. The State of

Telangana9, after referring the principles held by it in Neeru

Yadav's case (supra), Kanwar Singh's case (supra), Dolatram's

case (supra) and Subramani Gopalakrishnan's case (supra)

and also the facts of the said case, held that the parties there

had consensual relationship between them and the same was

mentioned in the charge-sheet thereon. By referring the same,

the Apex Court held that the Court must bear in mind that it is

a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be

cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event

has been made out.

22. On examining the fact that the Court below cancelled

the bail granted to the accused on misrepresentation of fact and

holding that there was no misrepresentation of fact, this Court

vide order dated 09.11.2020 in Crl.P.No.2820 of 2020 quashed

the cancellation of bail order by the Court below.

23. In State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Chawla10, the Delhi High

Court, referring to the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court with regard to factors to be considered while granting bail

and while canceling the bail, laid down certain principles and

held that the bail can be cancelled where the order granting bail

Criminal Appeal No.716/2018, dated 17.05.2018

Laws (DLH) 2020 54 KL,J

suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of

justice, where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first

place, given the very serious nature of the charges against the

accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be

justified and that the order granting bail is apparently

whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.

24. In Myakala Dharmarajam Vs. State of Telangana11,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of bail stands on one

footing while cancellation of bail is harsh order because it

interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not

be lightly resorted to. Each criminal case presents its own

peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds

peculiar to the factors to be considered while granting bail have

been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be the gravity of the

crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the

accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the

likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the

offence, the possibility of his tampering with the evidence and

witnesses, and obstructing the course of justice etc. On the said

ground, the bail can be cancelled. The Hon'ble Apex Court has

already considered the guidelines laid down by it in Raghubir

Singh Vs. State of Bihar12

25. In Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi13, the

Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to the principle laid down by it in

(2020) SCC (2) 743

(1986) 4 SCC 481

Laws (SC) 2017 1121 KL,J

various judgments, including relevant considerations for

granting bail, principle laid down by it in State of U.P.through

CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi14 and other judgments held that

the bail can be cancelled when there is reasonable apprehension

of tampering the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the

complainant. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

also referred the principle laid down by it in Kanwar Singh

(supra).

26. Referring to Masroor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh15,

State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad16 the Hon'ble Apex Court

held as follows:-

"We are conscious of the fact that the respondent is only an under-trial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration.

However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair trail of the case. Thus, undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of accused persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations. After all, if there is a threat to fair trial because of intimidation of witnesses etc., that would

(2005) 8 SCC 21

(2009) 14 SCC 286

(2017) 2 SCC 178 KL,J

happen because of wrongdoing of the accused himself, and the consequences thereof, he has to suffer."

27. After referring to various case laws, the Hon'ble Apex

Court, observed that in criminal trial, witnesses must be able to

depose without fear, freely and truthfully. In Rajballav Prasad

(supra), the Apex Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused

thereon. Paragraph No.24 of the judgment it was held as

follows:-

" As indicated by us in the beginning, prime consideration before us is to protect the fair trial and ensure that justice is done. This may happen only. If the witnesses are able to depose without fear, freely and truthfully and this court is convinced that in the present case, that can be ensured only if the respondent is not enlarged on bail.

28. The importance of fair trial was emphasized in

Panchanan Mishra Vs. Digambar Mishra17 while setting aside

the order of the High Court granting bail in the following terms:-

"We have given our careful consideration on the rival submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side. The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in heinous crime and if there is delay in such a case the underlying object of cancellation of bail practically loses all its purpose and significance to the greatest prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses threatening the

(2005) 3 SCC 143 KL,J

family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation."

29. In Dharmander Singh Vs. State (Govt.of Nct,

Delhi)18, the High Court, had an occasion to deal with the

factors for consideration of bail and also the factors for

cancellation of bail and also considered Section 29 of the Act. It

has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P.19, held that a very important

consideration for grant of bail is to allow an accused the liberty

to prepare his defence, so that this right guaranteed under

Article 21 is real and not merely chimerical. Commencing on the

consequences of pre-trial detention, in Motiram (supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

"The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job is he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family."

30. Considering the various judgments, including Section 29

of the Act, the Delhi High Court held as follows:-

"68. In view of the above discussion and after considering the opinion of the Supreme Court and the views taken by the other High Courts, this court is persuaded to hold that the presumption of guilt engrafted in section 29 gets triggered and applies only once trial begins, that is

Laws (DLH) 2020 9156

1978 (4) SCC 47 KL,J

after charges are framed against the accused but not before that. The significance of the opening words of section 29 "where a person is prosecuted" is that until charges are framed, the person is not being prosecuted but is being investigated or is in the process of being charged. Accordingly, if a bail plea is considered at any stage prior to framing of charges, Section 29 has no application since upto that stage an accused is not being prosecuted.

69. Therefore, if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, section 29 has no application; and the grant or refusal of bail is to be decided on the usual and ordinary settled principles."

31. In view of the authoritative law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court and various High Courts, it is not in dispute that a

petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable where the

challenge is of the order of cancellation of bail by the trial Court.

32. The above said discussion would also reveal that bail can

be cancelled on the grounds of cogent and overwhelming reasons

and by specifically mentioning the reasons for cancellation of bail.

The possibility of interdicting fair trial is also a ground for

cancellation of bail. Public interest of fair trial would outweigh the

personal interest of the accused. Bail can be cancelled when there

is reasonable apprehension or tampering the witnesses or

apprehension or threat to the complainant.

33. In view of the above said discussion, coming to the facts

on hand, as discussed supra, prima facie, there are serious

allegations against the petitioner herein. The offences committed

by the petitioner herein are 'heinous offences'. The victim was an

orphan, 14 years old. The modus operandi adopted by the KL,J

petitioner herein/A.1 in commission of offence is also specifically

mentioned in the complaint as well as in the statements of the

witnesses including the victim. It is also relevant to note that the

victim died during the course of investigation on 12.08.2020. As

per the opinion of L.W.39, the Assistant Professor, the cause of

death of the victim was due to urosepsis and Cerebellar

infraction consequent to drug facilitated (aggravated) sexual

assault.

34. The petitioner herein with the help of A.2 and A.3 used

to visit the said 'Maruthi Orphanage', where the victim used to

stay. He used to pay money to A.2 and A.3 on the name of

donation. The victim and other inmates of the said Orphanage

also specifically stated that they have seen A.1 paying money to

A.2 and A.3 whenever he visits to the said Orphanage home. A.2

and A.3 used to inform the victim to sleep with the

petitioner/A.1. They have also threatened the victim not to

reveal the said fact to anybody. A.2 and A.3 used to send the

victim to the 5th floor of the said building. The petitioner/A.1

used to give drink (juice) to the victim and after consuming the

said juice, she used to fell unconscious. Under the said

unconscious state, the petitioner/A.1 used to exploit the victim

sexually. Thus, according to this Court, it is a heinous offence.

35. A perusal of the record would also reveal that the

victim died during the course of investigation on 12.08.2020.

The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the KL,J

inmates, who are orphans, of the said 'Maruthi Orphanage'.

They are staying in the said 'Maruthi Orphanage' to which the

A.2 and A.3 are founders. The petitioner/A.1 is a donor. Thus,

the petitioner herein and A.2 and A.3 are financially and

politically sound and thus there is every possibility of the

petitioner/A.1 tampering with the evidence and tampering with

the witnesses and there is possibility of interdicting fair trial. As

held by the Hon'ble Apex Court public interest of fair trial would

outweigh the personal interest of the petitioner/A.1.

36. The Court below, considering all the facts including the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Yadav

(supra), rightly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner herein

and other accused vide impugned order dated 28.12.2020.

According to this Court, there is no error in it. It is a reasoned

and well founded order. It does not warrant any interference by

this Court in invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner herein has failed to make out a

case to interfere with the impugned order and the same is liable

to be dismissed.

37.In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However,

considering the fact that trial Court has fixed schedule in

S.C.No.126 of 2020 from 19.07.2021, the petitioner herein/A.1 is

in jail from 28.12.2020, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to

dispose of the said Sessions Case as expeditiously as possible by KL,J

following Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by this Court

from time to time.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:13.07.2021.

Vvr