Akkapaka Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 2940 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3587 of 2022


ORDER:

1. This petition is filed to enlarge the petitioner/Accused

No.3 on bail in S.C.No.291 of 2021 on the file of the Principal

Sessions Judge at Karimnagar in connection with Crime No.21

of 2021 of Police Station, Ramagiri, Peddapalli District.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Accused

Nos.1 and 2 have committed murder of deceased D1 and D2

with the help and support of A3/petitioner, A4, A5 and others.

The reason behind the murder of D1 and D2 is that

Peddamma Temple was being constructed in Gunjapadugu

village under the leadership of A1. The deceased (D1) Gattu

Vaman Rao complained about temple construction undertaken

by A1 and filed complaints, resulting in notices to A1. It is

further alleged that D1 and D2 being Advocates were creating

problems, due to which, A1 planned to eliminate D1 and D2,

who were filing petitions before this Court on several issues

including the Temple being constructed by A1. The accused, 2 KS,J

Crlp_3587_2022

i.e., A2 to A6, who are having close acquaintance with A1 also

shared similar feelings and decided to eliminate D1 and D2.

A1 was desperately waiting to kill D1 and D2 as the

construction undertaken by A1 was facing problems.

According to charge sheet, A1 and A2, three months prior to

actual occurrence had made a futile attempt to kill the

deceased. On the actual day of occurrence i.e, on 17.02.2021,

A1 along with A3 and A5 attended a cake cutting programme

at Manthani and thereafter, at Manthani Chowrasta noticed a

car similar to the car of D1 proceeding towards the Court. To

confirm about the arrival of D1, A1 along with A3 and A5 went

to M.R.O Office and noticed the car of D1. Then A1 asked A5

to come to the Court and confirm the presence of D1 in the

Court and also inform about D1's moments to him. On the

same day at 9.30 a.m, A4 and A7 were attending a pooja at

A4's newly purchased drilling machine. Then, A1 called A4 on

his mobile phone and informed about D1 and D2. The

Petitioner/A5 confirmed about the arrival of D1 and D2 to

Manthani Court and informed A1, who in turn informed to A4.

 3                                                                 KS,J

                                                        Crlp_3587_2022

Thereafter, A4 called A2 from the cell phone of the

petitioner/A7 and instructed A2 to come near Manthani bus

depot with sickles which were with him. A4 along with

petitioner/A7 left in the car and meanwhile, A4 called A2

thrice from the cell phone of the petitioner/A7 giving

instructions. A2 came on his motor bike and kept two sickles

under the front seat of A4's car, the petitioner/A7 pushed the

sickles underneath the seat. A4 handed over his car to A2

and instructed A2 to meet A1 at MRO office. Thereafter, A4 left

with A2's motor bike along with the petitioner/A7. A1 and

A2, were waiting for D1 and D2 to come out of the Court.

Meanwhile, D1 and D2 left in their car towards Peddapally

followed by A1 and A2 and they intercepted the vehicle of D1

and D2 at Kalvacherla and there, the car of D1 and D2 was

stopped. Then, A1 and A2 attacked D1 and D2 with sickles

causing severe bleeding injuries, leading to death of D1 and

D2.

3. Sri Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the 4 KS,J

Crlp_3587_2022

petitioner/A3 argued that this Court has already granted bail

in favour of A6 and A7. Further, as seen from the facts of the

case, the facts are identical to that of A7 and for the said

reason, the petitioner/A3 is entitled to bail. The petitioner/A3

was doing petty business and nowhere did the police state

about any active support that was given by this petitioner/A3

to the other accused to infer any conspiracy for the murder of

D1 and D2. The present petitioner was arrayed as accused

only on the basis of confession of A1 and A2 and the

petitioner/A3 was never present at the scene of offence and

even according to the police, the petitioner/A3 was at a

distance of 12 kms when the alleged incident occurred. The

petitioner/A3 had taken the car of A1 and on his advise kept

the car in his house. If at all the petitioner/A3 had any

knowledge about the alleged incident, he would have never

kept the car in his house and would have destroyed the cell

phone. The police have given only one instance of A1 making

phone call around 2.20 p.m to the present petitioner/A3 and

there is no other evidence to infer any kind of complicity or 5 KS,J

Crlp_3587_2022

knowledge about the commission of murders. The

petitioner/A3 is in jail since one year and four months and in

view of there being no admissible evidence, the petitioner is

entitled to be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned

counsel for the defacto complainant submits that this

petitioner was in fact part of the criminal conspiracy right from

the beginning and cannot be equated in any manner with the

role of either A6 and A7, who were granted bail. The charge

sheet reflects active role played by this petitioner in the

process of locating the deceased, informing about their

whereabouts to A1 and ultimately leading to the murder of

both the deceased. At the instance of A1, this petitioner/A3

had taken his car and kept in his house, which was later

seized by the police. In the said circumstances, the bail of the

petitioner/A3 has to be refused. In support of his contention,

he relied on the orders of this Court in Criminal Petition

No.7547 of 2021, dated 10.11.2021, Criminal Petition No.

9242 of 2021, dated 17.12.2021 and Criminal Petition 6 KS,J

Crlp_3587_2022

No.6379 of 2021, dated 03.09.2021 wherein this Court

dismissed the prayer for bail of A5. He further relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal

No.632 of 2022 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 2640

of 2022 and referred to para 15 and 28 of the said judgment

wherein their Lordships have held that bail cannot be granted

by a cryptic order or in a mechanical manner. However, it

needs application of judicial mind and following well

established principles while granting bail, such as the nature

of accusation, prima facie case that the accused has

committed crime, severity of the punishment in the event of

conviction, the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if

released on bail, influencing witnesses and likelihood of

repeating similar offence.

5. As seen from the record, the role attributed to the

petitioner/A3 is that A1 used to help the petitioner/A3

financially and when he shared his intention to kill the

deceased, this petitioner/A3 has agreed to support A1 in the

said planning. Three months prior to the offence during a 7 KS,J

Crlp_3587_2022

party, A1, A5 and A3 were present and A1 stated that he

would kill the deceased at any cost, for which this

petitioner/A3 and A5 promised to extend their cooperation

whenever it was required.

6. On 17.02.2021, A1 handed over his car to A3 and asked

him to follow the car of the deceased and inform about the

moments of the deceased over phone and that A1 called this

petitioner/A3 when the petitioner/A3 was following the car of

the deceased. After commission of crime, A1 asked A3 to keep

Creta car with him in safe place. Further, it is the case of the

police that said Creta car was seized at the instance of this

petitioner/A3 from his house. It cannot be said that this

petitioner/A3 was not, in any way, involved in the commission

of crime. According to the prosecution, this petitioner/A3 in

fact promised A1 to help in eliminating the deceased. This

petitioner was also part of the planning process. According to

the charge sheet, three months prior to the alleged incident,

the petitioner/A3 promised A1 that he would help him in

eliminating the deceased. Accordingly, during the course of 8 KS,J

Crlp_3587_2022

investigation, the police have found that the petitioner/A3

actively supported A1 in giving information regarding the

whereabouts of the deceased and ultimately leading to killing

the deceased by A1 and A2.

7. In the said circumstances, the case is pre-planned

murder, heinous in nature and the petitioner/A3 who was

actively involved in the said planning and execution by

assisting A1, as per the charge sheet, is not entitled for the

relief of bail.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

However, since the petitioner/A3 is in jail 19.02.2021, the trial

Court is directed to complete the process of trial, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

                                                  ________________

                                                  K.SURENDER, J
Date: 21.6.2022
kvs
 9                                                      KS,J

                                             Crlp_3587_2022

      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER




         Criminal Petition No.3587 OF 2022




                 Date:21.06.2022




kvs