Telangana High Court
Yellu Santhosh Reddy And Another vs The State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2021
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6868 of 2021
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439
Cr.P.C. is filed by petitioners - Accused Nos. 13 and 14 in
S.C.No. 5 of 2021 on the file of IX Additional District Judge-cum
- Fast Track Court, Rangareddy District (Crime No. 592 of 2020
of P.S. Gachibowli) registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B(i), 302, 364, 379, 448, 449, 341, 342, 352, 323
and 506 IPC., seeking bail.
2. The case of prosecution is that: on 24.09.2020, at
about 18.35 hours, Smt. Chintha Avanthi Reddy lodged a
complaint that she married one Hemanth Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as 'the deceased') in 2020 against the will of her
parents and were living separately in TNGO's colony, Phase-II,
Gachibowli. While so, on 24.09.2020, at 14.30 hours, Accused
Nos. 9, 15, 10, 8, 13, 16, 14, 1, 12, 17 and some others came in
three cars, criminally trespassed into their house, beat them
and took them in i20 car of Accused No.10 and forcibly made
them sit in front seat and Accused No.8 sitting beside her and
deceased and all of them informed that they were taking them to
her father's house at Lingampally. However, when the car
reached Gopanpally X Road, above accused diverted the car
towards ORR. Suspecting danger to their lives, both
complainant and deceased got down from the car. At that time,
Accused No.1 and others got down from the car and forcibly
took the deceased in another car and went towards ORR.
Meanwhile, in-laws of complainant came to Gopanpally X Roads
to rescue her. But the above accused abused and threatened
them also with dire consequences. The complainant stated that
at the instigation of her father, all the accused persons, who are
close relatives, hatched a plan to do away the life of the
deceased, abducted him and beat him.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Palle Sriharinath
submits that in the charge-sheet, it is alleged that Accused
No.10 called Accused Nos. 13 and 14, 111 and 35 times and
basing on that allegation, prosecution tried to establish the
conspiracy between accused persons. Further, learned counsel
submits that the other allegation against petitioners is that
when police reached Gopanapally X Roads, Accused Nos. 1, 8,
12, 13 and 14 were present there trying to push complainant
and deceased into cars and on seeing in-laws of complainant,
they picked up a quarrel with them, but however, in the entire
charge-sheet, no specific overt acts were attributed against
these accused. According to learned counsel, since all accused
belong to the same family, petitioners have been implicated in
this case and were remanded to judicial custody on 24.09.2020
and from the last 425 days, they have been languishing in jail.
Learned counsel submits that earlier bail applications filed by
petitioners were dismissed and this is the fifth Application,
hence, their case may be considered for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Smt. Sridevi Juvvadi submits that petitioners, who
are Accused Nos. 13 and 14, at the behest of Accused Nos. 2
and 3, insisted the complainant to come along with them and
they aided and instigated in abducting the deceased and
complainant from their rented house. She further states that
Accused No.13 was arrested and his confessional statement was
recorded and at his instance, cell phone used in the commission
of offence was seized, call data of which establishes that
Accused No.13 communicated with other accused for
commission of offence and parents of deceased ie. L.Ws.2 and 3
stated that they were threatened by Accused No.13. It is stated
that Accused No. 14 is maternal uncle of complainant and he
also participated in abducting complainant and deceased and at
his instance, his cell phone and Brezza car bearing Registration
No. TS 15 EX 9781 which was used in the commission of offence
were also seized. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits
that Hon'ble Apex Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India1,
in respect of honour killings, specifically observed that 'the
criminal cases pertaining to honour killing or violence to the
couple(s) shall be tried before the designated Court/Fast Track
Court earmarked for that purpose. The trial must proceed on day-
to-day basis to be concluded preferably within six months from
the date of taking cognizance of the offence' and those directions
have to be applied even to the present case and the District
Judge shall assign this case as early as possible to one
AIR 2018 SC 1601
jurisdictional court so as to ensure expeditious disposal.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that already
Fast Track Special Court for Trial of POCSO Act Cases, Ranga
Reddy District, L.B. Nagar issued the Schedule and the trial is
going to commence from 29.11.2021. It is submitted that as
trial will be proceeding expeditiously, at this stage, petitioners
are not entitled for bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant
Sri V. Raghunath submits that entire charge-sheet and counter
filed by the State clearly show involvement of petitioners in
committing this offence and basing on this, the earlier four bail
applications moved by them were dismissed. As this is an
offence of 'honour killing' and in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to supra, now Schedule is also
given for trial of case, at this stage, petitioners are not entitled
for bail.
6. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused
the material on record.
7. The charge sheet and the counter-affidavit filed on
behalf of the State is evident that there are specific overt acts
against petitioners. Further, in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in Shakti Vahini's case, Fast Track Court was
designated to conduct trial and the said Court had already
issued Schedule for conduct of trial and trial is also going to
commence from 29.11.2021 onwards. In view of the same, as
the offences alleged against petitioners are grave in nature, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to them, at this stage.
8. The Criminal Petition is accordingly, dismissed.
___________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
25th November 2021
ksld
