Shaik Shabbir vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1583 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.3781 OF 2021
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the order

dated 06.04.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021 in Crl.M.P.No.2070 of

2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad, in

Crl.M.P.No.656 of 2014 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions

Judge, Miryalaguda, in Crl.M.P.No.538 of 2014 on the file of the VIII

Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda in S.C.No.226 of 2015.

2. Heard Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the

petitioners/A.1 to A.9 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

1st respondent and perused the record.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-

i) The petitioners herein are A.1 to A.9 in S.C.No.226 of 2015

pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at

Suryapet. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under

Sections 147,148, 120-B, 153(A), 302, 307 and 201 read with 149 of

IPC. The said case vide S.C.No.226 of 2015 is posted for trial and

schedule is fixed.

ii) The State filed a petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

vide Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021, seeking to cancel the bails granted to the

petitioners herein in Crl.M.P.No.2070 of 2014, dated 08.05.2014; in

Crl.M.P.No.538 of 2014 dated 06.06.2014 and Crl.M.P.No.656 of

2014 dated 02.07.2014 in Cr.No.28 of 2014 pending on the file of the

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

Station House Officer, Kodad Police Station. The Court below vide

order dated 06.04.2021 cancelled the bails granted to the petitioners

herein in the above said petitions.

iii) On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein, wife

of the deceased, the Police, Kodad Town Police Station had registered

a case in Cr.No.28 of 2014 against the petitioners herein for the

aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, the Police have

laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid

offences and the same is pending before the II Additional Sessions

Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet, vide S.C.No.226 of 2015.

4) At that stage, State through Inspector of Police, Kodad,

represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Suryapet, filed the

above said petition vide Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021 to cancel the bails

granted to the petitioners on the following grounds:-

i) The petitioners/A.1 to A.9 are threatening the witnesses in

S.C.No.226 of 2015 and they are making hectic efforts to mend the

witnesses, forcing the witnesses to have compromise with them and

also threatening them that they will kill them in the same way that

they killed the deceased in this case, if they did not compromise the

matter with the petitioners herein/A.1 to A.9.

ii) The petitonerrs/A.1 to A.9 conspired to cause breach of

peace in the village and creating law and order problem with an

intention to threat the witnesses. The 2nd respondent/defaco-

complainant (L.W.1) several times approached the Inspector of

Police, Kodad town and informed him that the petitioners/A.1 to A.9

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

are threatening her and other witnesses. On 02.03.2021, L.W.1

appeared before the Court below, submitted a written complaint

stating that the accused are threatening her and other witnesses. She is

having life threat from the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 in the said case.

Therefore, in those circumstances, the 2nd respondent and other

witnesses are under fear and not in a position to give evidence. If the

accused move in the village during the course of trial, they may cause

severe fear to L.W.1 and also threaten the other witnesses and thereby

they will cause hurdles for smooth trial of the case.

iii) The petitioners herein are having criminal background and

they have involved in several cases. They are indulging in threatening

witnesses and criminal cases registered against them. They are making

hectic efforts to have acquittal in the said criminal cases by

threatening the witnesses. Thus, the petitioners herein are creating law

and order problem in the village and creating panic situation more

particularly in Narsimulugudem village where the 2nd respondent and

other witnesses are residing.

iv) On the complaint lodged by L.W.1 complaining threatening

of witnesses in the present crime i.e. Cr.No.28 of 2014, police

Munagala had registered a case in Cr.No.101 of 2014, against the

petitioners /A.1 to A.8 for the offences under Sections 341, 506, 195

read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the

Police have filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide

C.C.No.633 of 2017. After full fledged trial, learned Judicial

Magistrate of First class, Kodad, has convicted them by imposing

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

punishment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.12,000/-. During trial

in C.C.No.633 of 2017, the petitioner Nos. 1 to A.8/A.1 to A.8 have

threatened the witnesses. Therefore, another case in crime vide

Cr.No.304 of 2019 was registered against them for the offences under

Sections 195(A), 506 read with 34 IPC by the Police, Kodad town.

After completion of investigation, they have filed a charge sheet and

the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.1024 of 2019 which is

pending. Therefore, the petitioners herein are having criminal

background, involved in several criminal cases threatening the

witnesses and therefore, on the said grounds, the 1st respondent-State

has sought to cancel the bails granted to the petitioners/A.1 to A.9

pending in Cr.No.28 of 2014.

v) The petitioners herein resisted the said petition by way of

filing counter stating that the bail is their right and the same cannot be

cancelled in a routine manner. They never indulged in any case as

alleged by the State more particularly threatening of witnesses.

vi) The allegations made against the petitioners herein are false,

baseless and vague. They never misused the liberty granted to them

while granting bail. The Police, without verifying the genuineness or

truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the 2nd respondent,

registered cases against the petitioners with an intention to cancel the

bails granted to the petitioners and to harass them. There is no

complaint against the petitioners herein to show that the petitioners

herein are creating law and order problem and panic situation in the

said village i.e. Narsimulugudem. The 2nd respondent has filed similar

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

petition seeking cancellation of bail and the same was dismissed.

Against the judgment in C.C.No.633 of 2017, the petitioners/Accused

therein have filed an appeal vide Crl.A.No.179 of 2019 and it is

pending. C.C.No.1024 of 2019 is also pending for trial. The 2nd

respondent/defacto-complainant has conspired with others to do away

the life of the 2nd petitoner/A.2 and a case was registered, and after

completion of investigation, the Police have laid charge sheet. A case

vide S.C.No.16 of 2019 is pending on the file of the Assistant

Sessions Judge, at Huzurnagar. The Police picket is being maintained

in Narsimulugudem gram panchayat which is nearer to the house of

the defacto-complainant. Therefore, the allegation of the 2nd

respondent that the petitioners herein are creating law and order

problem and also panic situation in the said village, are false and

baseless.

5) The complaint, dated 02.03.2021 lodged by the 2nd

respondent is also false and baseless. The vagueness of the allegations

mentioned therein would reveal the said fact. The 2nd respondent has

not mentioned the date, place, time etc., and alleged threatening in the

complaint and the same would reveal that it is a false complaint as

alleged by the petitioners herein by the 2nd respondent with a mala

fide intention to harass the petitioners and to cancel the bails. The

Inspector of Police, Kodad without verifying the genuineness, truth or

otherwise of the allegations made by the 2nd respondent filed an

affidavit alleging that the petitioners are threatening the witnesses,

creating law and order problem in that village, which are baseless.

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

There should be cogent and overwhelming circumstances for

cancellation of bail and bail cannot be cancelled in a mechanical

manner. With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to dismiss

the petition filed by the State seeking cancellation of bail.

6) The Court below vide order dated 06.04.2021 allowed the

Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021 and cancelled the bail granted to the

petitioners herein on the following grounds:-

i) The petitioners herein are having history of involvement in

criminal cases. A case in Cr.No.101 of 2014 was registered against the

petitioners 1 to 8/A.1 to A.8 on the allegations of threatening of the

witnesses and after completion of investigation, The Police have laid

charge sheet. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.633 of 2017 in

which they were convicted and against which, an appeal vide

S.C.No.16 of 2019 is filed by them which is pending.

ii) Another case vide C.C.No.1024 of 2019 was also registered

against the petitioners herein on the very same allegations of

threatening of the witnesses and the said case is pending. The 2nd

respondent (L.W.1) herein, with criminal conspiracy with others, tried

to do away the life of the A.2 herein and the said case vide S.C.No.16

of 2019 is also pending.

iii) The petitioners herein/A.1 to A.9 are threatening the

witnesses in S.C.No.226 of 2015. The 2nd respondent has lodged a

complaint on 02.03.2021 complaining that the petitioners herein are

threatening the witnesses. The 2nd respondent and other witnesses are

coming to the Court with Police escort. Some of the accused are

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

absenting intentionally to break the schedule and thus they are making

efforts to delay the trial in one way or the other. On the said grounds,

the Court below has cancelled the bails granted to the petitioners

herein.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

7) Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners

would submit that the bail is a right and it is enshrined under Article

21 of the Constitution of India. Bail once granted cannot be cancelled

in a routine and mechanical manner. There should be overwhelming

supervening circumstances for the purpose of cancellation of bail and

the same are lacking in the present case. There are no specific

allegations in the complaint, dated 02.03.2021. The said complaint is

very vague and there is no mention about the date, time and place of

the alleged threat by the petitioners herein given to the prosecution

witnesses. Even then the Police have registered a case in Cr.No.68 of

2021. Against judgment in C.C.No.633 of 2017, an appeal was filed

and it is pending and a case vide C.C.No.1024 of 2019 is also pending

for trial. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are having

criminal history and they are involved in the said two cases.

8) There are 37 witnesses in the said S.C.No.226 of 2015. Due

to the present situation, it may take long time to complete the trial

though schedule is fixed. The Courts below have granted bail to the

petitioners herein way back in 2014 itself and since then they are on

bail. There are no allegations of threatening the witnesses during the

course of investigation. The 2nd respondent with a mala fide intention

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

to harass the petitioners, lodged the above said complaint, dated

02.03.2021 with vague allegations.

9) Placing reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in

Kamireddy Shyam Naidu Vs. State of Telangana in

Crl.A.No.2822 of 2020, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the

petitioners herein would submit that the bail cannot be cancelled in a

routine and mechanical manner and the Courts below though referred

several judgments, without appreciating the real purport of the said

judgment, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners herein.

10) With the said submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioners sought to quash the impugned order and release the

petitioners herein on bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

11) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, on

instructions, would submit that there are specific allegations that the

petitioners have involved in two criminal cases and they have criminal

history. There is specific allegation that the petitioners herein are

threatening the witnesses and creating law and order problem in the

village. There is panic situation. There is picket in the village. Several

incidents took place in the said village and therefore, there is law and

order problem. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the

Police have registered a case in Cr.No.68 of 2021 against the

petitioners herein under sections 195-A and 506 of I.P.C. The Court

below, on consideration of the entire facts, antecedents of the

petitioners and other circumstances, relying on the principle laid down

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

by the Apex Court and other Courts in various judgments, cancelled

the bails granted to the petitioners herein and the it is a reasoned

order.

12) With the said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor,

sought to dismiss the present petition.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

13) The above said facts would reveal that the petitioners herein

are accused Nos.1 to 9 in S.C.No.226 of 2015 and the offences alleged

against them are under Sections 147,148, 120-B, 153(A), 302, 307

and 201 read with 149 of IPC. The allegations against the petitioners

herein are that they have conspired together, formed into an unlawful

assembly and committed brutal murder.

14) As per the record, it is also evident that the petitioner Nos.1

to 8 herein/A.1 to A.8 have involved in a case in Cr.No.101 of 2014

with the allegations of threatening of the witnesses in the present

crime i.e.Cr.No.28 of 2014 during the course of investigation. The

police after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against

them and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.633 of 2017. Learned

Magistrate after full fledged trial, convicted the petitioners 1 to 8/A.1

to A.8. An appeal filed by them is pending. They have also involved

in C.C.No.1024 of 2019 on the very same allegations of the

threatening of witnesses in C.C.No.633 of 2017 during trial. The said

Calendar Case is pending. It is also relevant to note that the 2nd

respondent (L.W.1) is also an accused in S.C.No.16 of 2019 and the

allegations against her in the said case are that she, along with others,

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

conspired together and tried to do away the life of the 2nd

petitioner/A.2. Thus, there are cases pending against the petitioners

and the 2nd respondent, residents of the very same village i.e.

Narsimulugudem, Munagala mandal, Suryapet district. In the counter

filed before the Court below itself, the petitioners herein have

admitted that there is police picket in the said village.

15) In the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Kodad

Town Police Station, it is stated that the petitioners herein/A.1 to A.9

are threatening the witnesses in this case and he has not mentioned

any specific dates etc. Even in the complaint, dated 02.03.2021, there

is no specific allegation about the date, time and place of the alleged

threatening of the witnesses by the petitioners herein. However, a case

in Cr.No.68 of 2021 is registered against the petitioners herein for the

offences under Sections 195-A and 506 of IPC. Investigation is

pending in the said case. The names of the petitioners herein are

specifically mentioned.

16) At the same time, it cannot be ignored the antecedents of

the petitioners herein. As discussed supra, they have involved in the

above said two cases i.e. C.C.No.633 of 2017 and C.C.No.1024 of

2019. The allegations against the petitioners herein in the said cases

are with regard to the threatening of the witnesses in the present case

itself i.e. Cr.No.28 of 2014. There is law and order problem in the said

village and therefore, the Police have arranged a picket in the said

village. A perusal of charge sheet also would reveal that most of the

witnesses are from the same village i.e. Narsimulugudem. They are

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

coming to the Court to give evidence with police escort every time.

The said facts would reveal that cases and counter cases are pending

between two groups of the said village.

17) The lis is involved in the present Criminal Petition i.e.

cancellation of bail is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in a case in Raghubir Sing Vs. State of Bihar1 laid down certain

guidelines/parameters for cancellation of bail which are as follows:-

i) The accused misused his liberty by indulging in similar criminal cases,

ii)) Interferes with the course of investigation,

iii)) attempts to tamper with the evidence or witnesses,

iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities,

v) there is likelihood of fleeing to another country,

vi) Attempts to make himself scare by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,

vii) Attempts to place beyond the reach of his surety etc.,

18) In Dolat ram Vs. State of Haryana2 the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that 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.

19) In Chinna Reddy Vs. N.Vidhyasagar Reddy3 it was held

that the cancellation of bail cannot be at whims and fancies. The bail

(1986) 4 SCC 487

(1995) 1 SCC 349

1982 Crl.LJ 2183

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

can be cancelled only on specific grounds that the accused has

committed misconduct or misuse of the terms of the bail.

20) In Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan4, the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that the Court while dealing with an application filed

to cancel the bail shall consider the gravity of crime, the character of

evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the

victim, witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from the

justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with

the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and other grounds

are required to be taken into consideration.

21) In Ms.X Vs. State of Telangana5, the Hon'ble Apex Court

by referring to the principle laid down by it in several other cases held

that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case

based on supervening event has been made out.

22) In Janapala Krishna Vs. State of AP6 it was held that a

petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of

cancellation of bail is maintainable.

23) In Abdul Basit Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary7, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that since there is no express provision for

review of the order granting bail exists under the Cr.P.C., the High

Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 of Cr.P.C. applies

barring review of the judgment and order of the Courts granting bail

to the accused.

2012 (12) SCC 180

Crl.A.No.716 of 2018 dated 17.05.2018

(2015) 1 ALD (Crl) 409

(2014) 10 SCC 754

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

24) This Court in Kamireddy Shyam Naidu supra, by

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

various High Courts and also considering the facts of the said case,

where cancellation of bail was sought on the grounds of obtaining bail

by playing fraud, by filing a created affidavit -cum- compromise etc.,

quashed the order passed by the Court below canceling the bail

granted to the accused therein, on the ground that there was no fraud

and no misrepresentation of facts by the accused therein while

obtaining bail.

25) In view of the law laid down by this Court and Apex Court

in the judgments referred supra, coming to the facts on hand, as

discussed above, the petitioners herein have involved in two other

criminal cases on the very same allegations of threatening the

witnesses. On the complaint lodged by L.W.1 alleging that petitioner

Nos.1 to 8/A.1 to A.8 have threatened the witnesses during the course

of investigation at crime stage in Cr.No.28 of 2014, the Police have

registered a case in Cr.No.101 of 2014. After completion of

investigation, they have laid charge sheet against them and the same

was taken on file vide C.C.No.633 of 2017 which was ended in

conviction. An appeal filed challenging the said judgment is pending.

During the pendency of trial in the said case vide C.C.No.633 of 2014

another case in Cr.No.304 of 2019 was registered against them on the

allegations of threatening the witnesses in C.C.No.633 of 2017. The

Police, after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against

them. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.1024 of 2019 for the

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

offences under Sections 195-A and 506 of IPC. The allegations in the

present case i.e. S.C.No.226 of 2015 against the petitioners herein are

that they have conspired together, formed into an unlawful assembly

and murdered the deceased (husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-

complainant) brutally. The allegations levelled against the petitioners

herein are serious and the gravity of the offences has to be looked into

by the Court while dealing with an application for cancellation of bail.

It is relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by L.W.1 alleging

that the petitioners herein are threatening the witnesses in S.C.No.226

of 2015, a case in Cr.No.68 of 2021 was registered against the

petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 195-A and 506 of

I.P.C, and Investigation is pending. Thus, at every stage there is

allegation of threatening of witnesses by the petitioners herein.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioners herein that the allegations

in the complaint dated 02.03.2021 are vague, no date, time and place

are mentioned therein etc., cannot be accepted at this stage. The

names of the petitioners herein are specifically mentioned in the said

complaint, that First Information Report is not an encyclopedia and

admittedly, investigation is pending in the said crime. Just because

there is no specific mention about the time, place and date of the

alleged threatening, it cannot be said that the bail granted to the

petitioners herein cannot be cancelled.

26) It is also relevant to note that there is also allegation

against L.W.1, that she along with others conspiring criminally, tried

to do away the life of the 2nd petitioner/A.2 herein. A case vide

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

S.C.No.16 of 2019 is pending. There is law and order problem in the

said village i.e. Narsimulugudem. There is a police picket in the said

village arranged by the Police which is also not disputed by the

petitioners herein/A.1 to A.9. In fact, they themselves mentioned the

said fact in the counter affidavit filed by them before the Court below.

It is the specific contention of the 2nd respondent and State that the

witnesses are coming to the Court to give evidence in S.C.No.226 of

2015 with police escort every time. There is also mention of non-

cooperation of accused in concluding trial. They are trying to prolong

the trial in one ground or the other. The said Sessions Case is of the

year 2015.

27) In view of the said grounds, considering the antecedents of

the petitioners herein, according to this Court, the Court below has

rightly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners herein vide

impugned order dated 06.04.2021. It is a reasoned order. In view of

the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex

Court in the above decisions, the petitioners herein have failed to

establish any ground for quashing the order impugned herein dated

06.04.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021 passed by the II Additional

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, in S.C.No.226 of 2015 by this

Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.

and, therefore, the present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

28) The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, considering the fact that the Sessions Case is of the year

2015, trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial as

KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021

expeditiously as possible by strictly following the Standard Operating

Procedure issued by this Court from time to time. Liberty is granted to

the petitioners to move bail petition after completing the evidence of

material witnesses in S.C.No.226 of 2015.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 08.06.2021.

vvr