Telangana High Court
The State Through Cbi, vs T. Gangi Reddy Yerra Gangi Reddy on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Criminal Petition No.2995 of 2023
Between:
The State through CBI,
SC-III, New Delhi.
... Petitioner
And
T.Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy,
S/o Peda Gangi Reddy and another.
...
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 28.04.2023
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether her Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
___________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
2
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Criminal Petition No.2995 of 2023
% 28.4.2023
Between:
# The State through CBI,
SC-III, New Delhi.
..... Petitioner
And:
$ T.Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy,
S/o Peda Gangi Reddy and another.
....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Nagendar and
Sri Anil Talwar
Learned Special Public Prosecutors
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri D.Seshadri Naidu
Learned senior counsel
^ Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri L.Ravi Chander and
Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
Learned senior counsels
? Cases Referred:
1. MANU/PR/0047/1949
3
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
2. MANU/SC/0141/1962
3. (2020) 7 SCC 722
4. (1978) 2 SCC 411
5. (2012) 12 SCC 180
6. 1995 SCC (1) 349
7. (2018) 16 SCC 511
8. 2021 SCC Online 854
9. (1986) 4 SCC 48
4
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2995 of 2023
ORDER:
This matter came up for consideration before this Court
basing on the application initially filed before the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "the CBI" for brevity)
seeking cancellation of bail that was granted in favour of
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) in
RC.No.04(S)/2020/SC-III/New Delhi. The High Court of
Andhra Pradesh which dealt with the matter through orders,
dated 16.3.2022, exhibiting an opinion that there are no legal
grounds to cancel the bail that was granted in favour of
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), dismissed the
application, vide Criminal Petition No.788 of 2022.
2. CBI carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered
judgment on 16.01.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2023,
remitting the matter back to the High Court for considering
the application moved by the CBI afresh in accordance with
law and on merits in the light of the observations made by it.
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in pursuance of the earlier
judgment and the order rendered by it transferring the case
to C.B.I. Special Court, Hyderabad, ordered that the
application moved for cancellation of bail, which was earlier
filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi,
be transferred to the High Court for the State of Telangana.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered this Court i.e., High
Court for the State of Telangana to consider, decide and
dispose of the application for cancellation of bail on merits
and in the light of the observations made. Thus, the present
case came up for consideration before this Court.
3. Heard Sri N.Nagendar and Sri Anil Talwar, learned
Special Public Prosecutors for CBI. Also, heard
Sri D.Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel, who argued on
behalf of Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel on record for
respondent No.1-accused No.1. Also heard, Sri L.Ravi
Chander, learned senior counsel and Sri Posani
Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, who argued on behalf
of Ms. T.Swetcha, learned counsel on record for respondent
No.2.
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
4. Perused the contents of entire material that is placed by
the contesting parties and the contents of the case law relied
upon.
5. The case of the CBI, as per the contents of charge
sheet, in capsule, is that a larger conspiracy and pre
meditated plan resulted in the death of Sri Y.S.Vivekananda
Reddy (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased" for brevity),
who was a prominent political person at the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The deceased served as Member of Legislative
Assembly, Member of Lok Sabha and as Minister in the
Government of Andhra Pradesh for a considerable period.
The deceased happens to be the brother of former Chief
Minister of Andhra Pradesh and uncle of the present Chief
Minister of the same State.
6. The plan for assassination of the deceased was
prepared in or around 10.02.2019 at the house of accused
No.1, for cancellation of whose bail, the CBI is before this
Court. The ex-driver of the deceased i.e., accused No.4-Shaik
Dasthagiri, accused No.2-Y.Sunil Yadav and accused No.3-
Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy were part of the plan and
conspiracy. All were having different reasons for boring
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
grudge against the deceased. On the date on which all
gathered, i.e., on 10.02.2019, accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) proposed for killing the deceased. On a query posed
by accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri, accused No.1 (respondent
No.1) said "You are not alone, we are all with you and we
have support of very powerful persons". Accused No.4-Shaik
Dasthagiri enquired "who are those powerful persons." On
that, accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) replied that
Y.S.Avinash Reddy, Y.S.Bhaskar Reddy, Y.S.Manohar Reddy
and D.Siva Shankar Reddy are also involved in the plan and
that D.Siva Shankar Reddy (who is arrayed as accused No.5
through a supplementary charge sheet) would give them
Rupees Forty Crores. Accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein)
also informed accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri that his share
would be Rupees Five crores out of that amount. It was
decided that accused No.2-Y.Sunil Yadav and accused No.3-
Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy will kill the street dog which is
roaming near the house of the deceased as it could be a
hindrance for the execution of the plan.
7. Four to five days thereafter, accused No.4-Shaik
Dasthagiri received a sum of Rupees One Crore from accused
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
No.2-Y.Sunil Yadav as advance for execution of the plan.
Accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri kept the amount with his
associate by name Syed Munna. The CBI, during the course
of investigation, seized an unexplained sum of
Rs.46,70,000/- from the locker of the said Syed Munna. Ten
days after preparing the plan, accused No.2-Y.Sunil Yadav
and accused No.3-Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy killed the
street dog.
8. On 14.3.2019, accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein)
confirmed the absence of trusted servant of the deceased by
name P.Rajasekhar at the house of the deceased. To execute
the plan, accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri purchased an axe
on the same evening. Accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri and
accused No.2-Y.Sunil Yadav consumed alcohol in the vacant
area which is present near the house of the deceased. Around
11.30 p.m., on the same day, the deceased returned to his
house after day long election campaign. Fifteen to twenty
minutes thereafter, accused No.3-Gajjala Uma Shankar
Reddy dropped accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) at the
house of the deceased on his motor cycle. Later, accused
No.3-Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy joined accused No.2-
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
Y.Sunil Yadav and accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri who were
consuming alcohol.
9. Accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) entered into the
house of the deceased through the main gate. After some
time, the deceased came out of the house for smoking and
informed the watchman-Ranganna that accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) will stay there for that night. After
some time, accused No.2-Y.Sunil Yadav, accused No.3-
Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy and accused No.4-Shaik
Dasthagiri started from the place where they were consuming
alcohol and reached the rear side of the house of the
deceased on the motor cycle of accused No.3-Gajjala Uma
Shankar Reddy. They all jumped the wall. Accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein), who was already present at the
house of the deceased, opened the side door of the house and
on that, all the three entered into the house of the deceased.
An argument went on between accused No.1 (respondent
No.1 herein) and the deceased regarding monetary
transactions. Accused Nos.1 to 4 thrashed the deceased with
axe and punches. The deceased was forced to write a note
throwing blame on his driver-Prasad. Thereafter, they took
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
the deceased to the bath room and again, they gave blows
with the axe. After killing the deceased, they searched the
house and took away some documents. Subsequently,
accused Nos.2 to 4 jumped the wall and reached the place
where the motor cycle was parked. Accused No.1 (respondent
No.1) came out through the front gate. While going out, he
threatened the watchman-Ranganna of dire consequences if
he reveals anything to anyone about the incident. Thereafter,
all of them met at the residence of accused No.1 (respondent
No.1 herein) at about 5.30 am of 15.3.2019. Accused No.1
assured accused Nos.2 to 4 not to worry about Police. He also
assured of cleaning the scene of offence. On that, accused
Nos.2 to 4 disbursed in different directions.
10. Investigation revealed accused No.3-Gajjala Uma
Shankar Reddy running on the road around 3.15 am. It was
found through a CC TV camera installed on a Bridgestone
shop which is located near the house of the deceased.
Positive opinion to that effect was given by the Directorate of
Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Google co-ordinates
reveal the presence of accused No.2-Y.Sunil Yadav at the
scene of offence on the intervening night of 14/15-3-2019 at
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
02:42:04 hours. Investigation also revealed that accused No.2
and accused No.4 exchanged several SMS and calls on the
previous day and also on the date of the incident.
Investigation also revealed that accused No.1 enquired the
watchman-Ranganna in the evening of 14.3.2019 so as to
ensure that the Care-taker-P.Rajasekhar was not coming
back on that night. Investigation also revealed involvement of
accused No.1 in cleaning the scene of offence and destroying
the evidence. Investigation also revealed that accused Nos.1
to 4 were associated with each other and with the deceased,
due to which their entry into the house of the deceased was
friendly on the night of the incident.
11. As per the contents of the supplementary charge sheet,
Forensic Psychological Analysis, on the contents of the letter
purportedly written by the deceased at the time of his
murder, revealed that the contents present therein were
written under duress. It also indicated poor and messy hand
writing. The co-ordination between the pen and the brain is
not observed in the said hand writing. The hand writing was
shaky and irregular which indicates that the writer was
under extreme thought pressure. The letter is incomplete and
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
the signature style is different to that of the standard writings
and signature.
12. Accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy visited the house
of the deceased on 15.3.2019 at around 6.30 am, propagated
a fake theory along with his other associates, who are part of
the conspiracy, regarding the death of the deceased that he
died due to heart attack. On the instructions of accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) and accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar
Reddy, the maid working at the house of the deceased by
name Lakshmi cleaned the blood stains present at the scene
of offence. Also, accused No.1 (respondent No.1) and accused
No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy played an active role to dress up
the scene of crime. The room was bolted from inside by
accused No.1 (respondent No.1) and accused No.5-D.Siva
Shankar Reddy. Thus, accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein)
and accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy along with their
close associates actively participated in destruction of the
scene of crime by cleaning the bed room, bath room and
getting the wounds cleaned with the help of a Compounder
and others. The witnesses-Inayathullah, maid-Lakshmi,
Prakash and others revealed the role of accused No.1 and
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy in arrangement of
cotton, bandages and Body freezer box through their
associates. The witnesses- Madhusudhan Reddy and
Venkataramana have revealed that the room was bolted from
inside while cleaning and bandaging was going on. Another
witness by name Pratap Reddy also corroborated the said fact
and that at that time, the Circle Inspector-Shankaraiah also
reached there and enquired accused No.1 (respondent No.1)
and accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy as to why they are
getting the scene of offence cleaned as it will get complicated.
Accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy and his close associates
tried to convince the persons who visited that the deceased
died due to blood vomiting and heart attack. Accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) and accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar
Reddy, who reached the scene of offence, started cleaning the
scene of offence without informing the daughter of the
deceased and her husband. Accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar
Reddy dictated a vague complaint to one M.V.Krishna Reddy
and insisted the Circle Inspector-Shankariah to register the
F.I.R. on the basis of the said vague complaint. Accused No.5
offered one K.Gangadhar Reddy Rupees Ten crores for taking
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
the responsibility of murder of the deceased. Accused No.5-
D.Siva Shankar Reddy tried to influence accused No.4-Shaik
Dasthagiri after his statement was given under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
13. On 03.3.2021, CBI called accused No.4-Shaik
Dasthagiri and others to New Delhi by giving notices. Ten
days prior to the date on which they are supposed to appear,
accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy called accused No.4-
Shaik Dasthagiri to the house of one Bayupu Reddy at
Pulivendala and briefed him not to disclose their names
before CBI and assured that his life would be settled. Bayupu
Reddy confirmed the visit of accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar
Reddy to his house and stated that they came to his house
and had a discussion at the relevant period. As per the
investigation, one Bharath Yadav accompanied accused No.4-
Shaik Dasthagiri on his visit to New Delhi, as per the
instructions of accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy, to keep
a watch. After the incident, accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) criminally intimidated the watchman-Ranganna of
fear consequences if he divulges their identity. The
watchman-Ranganna in the statement given under Section
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
164 Cr.P.C. stated that he did not reveal the true facts before
Police earlier, as he was under the threat of accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein).
14. Penning down of the chronology of events is essential
for effective and fruitful discussion with regard to the
grounds highlighted by CBI seeking for cancellation of default
bail granted in favour of accused No.1 who is arrayed as
respondent No.1 herein.
Date of death of the deceased Intervening night of
14/15-3-2019
Date of registration of the case
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. 15.3.2019
Date on which Section of law
was altered 15.3.2019
Date of arrest of accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) 28.3.2019
Date on which statutory bail i.e.,
default bail was granted in favour
of accused No.1 (respondent No.1) 27.6.2019
Date on which investigation was
transferred to CBI as per the orders of
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
W.P.Nos.3944 of 2019 and 1639 of 2020. 11.3.2020
Date on which CBI registered the case
and took up further investigation 09.7.2020
Date on which charge sheet was filed
by CBI 26.10.2020
Date on which supplementary
Charge sheet was filed by CBI 31.01.2022
Date on which the application
filed by CBI vide Crl.M.P.No.791
of 2022 before the Sessions Court,
Kadapa for cancellation of bail
stood dismissed. 30.11.2021
Date on which the petition filed by
CBI seeking cancellation of statutory
bail granted in favour of accused No.1
was dismissed by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh through Orders in
Crl.P.No.788 of 2022. 16.3.2022
15. In the light of the factual scenario that is narrated
supra and the submissions made by the contesting parties,
the short point that falls for consideration is:
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
"Whether there exists any justifiable grounds
to recall the liberty granted to accused No.1
(respondent No. herein), by virtue of statutory
bail granted through Orders in
Crl.M.P.No.2028 of 2019, that were rendered
by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Pulivendula, dated 27.6.2019, as
sought by the C.B.I."
16. Making their vigorous submission, justifying the relief
sought for, the learned Special Public Prosecutors who
argued on behalf of the CBI, collectively stated that accused
No.1 (respondent No.1) played active role in killing the
deceased. They stated that the conspiracy to kill the deceased
was hatched at the residence of accused No.1 (respondent
No.1) and it is accused No.1 (respondent No.1) who facilitated
free entry of other three assailants, i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4
into the house of the deceased on the night of the incident.
They stated that the statement of the witnesses reveals larger
conspiracy, destruction of the scene of crime and also
revealed prominent role played by accused No.1 (respondent
No.1) in the commission of the crime.
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
17. Sri N.Nagendar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
CBI, vehemently argued that accused No.1 (respondent No.1)
intimidated the witnesses. Learned Special Public Prosecutor
also stated that while escaping from the house of the
deceased, accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) threatened
the watchman-Ranganna of dire consequences if he reveals
their identity. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also stated
that when the statement of the watchman-Ranganna was
recorded under Section 164 Cr,.P.C. by the Magistrate
concerned, he clearly stated that he did not reveal the true
facts earlier, as he was under the threat of accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein). Learned Special Public Prosecutor
also stated that as a part of the conspiracy, accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) and accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar
Reddy along with their associates have given wide
propagation to the theory of heart attack to the deceased so
as to escape from the clutches of law. Learned Special Public
Prosecutor also stated that much material is on record to
show that the scene of offences i.e., the bed room and the
bath room of the house of the deceased were cleaned
thoroughly under the directions of accused No1 (respondent
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
No.1) and that the wounds of the deceased were got
bandaged under his directions. Learned Special Public
Prosecutor also stated that in case, accused No.1 (respondent
No.1 herein) had no intention to screen the evidence, he had
no reason to manage the things and to propagate the theory
of heart attack and blood vomiting. Learned Special Public
Prosecutor also stated that at every stage of investigation,
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is interfering. Learned
Special Public Prosecutor also stated that accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) is monitoring the investigation with
his henchmen and it is found that his associates are
influencing the vital witnesses. Learned Special Public
Prosecutor also stated that further investigation is still
continuing regarding the larger conspiracy and the persons
behind the screen. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also
stated that there is sound suspicion that several witnesses
are being influenced at the behest of accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein). Learned Special Public Prosecutor
finally stated that the presence of accused No.1 (respondent
No.1 herein) outside itself sends an indication to the crucial
witnesses that their lives would be at stake in case they open
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
their mouths regarding the material facts concerning larger
conspiracy and thus, at the crucial stage of investigation, the
presence of accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) outside is
undesirable. Learned Special Public Prosecutor thereby seeks
to cancel the bail granted and to remand accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) to judicial custody.
18. Respondent No.2 who came on record in this case
through orders in I.A.No.1 of 2023 dated 20.4.2023 sailed
along with the petitioner-CBI.
19. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu and Sri L.Ravi Chander,
learned senior counsels, argued on behalf of respondent
No.2. Their submission is that accused No.1 is the master
mind and the person who executed the plan. Learned senior
counsels stated that it is accused No.1 (respondent No.1) who
opened the doors of the house of the deceased and facilitated
the other prime accused to enter into the house of the
deceased on the night of the incident. They also stated that it
is accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) who assured to give
Rupees Forty Crores to other accused.
20. Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned senior counsel, submitted
that accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is the bridge
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
between the persons behind the screen and the executants of
the plan. Learned senior counsel further submitted that CBI
has recovered Rupees Forty Five lakhs from a friend of
accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri, which itself establishes the
version of the prosecution that huge amount was spent for
eliminating the deceased. Learned senior counsel further
stated that accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is
influencing the witnesses and as he had taken active part in
killing the deceased, bail has to be cancelled. Learned senior
counsel also argued that as the investigation by the Special
Investigation Team (SIT) was shaky, CBI entered. Learned
senior counsel submitted that mere grant of statutory/
default bail cannot stop the Court to reconsider the same.
Learned senior counsel during the course of his submission
referred to the contents at paras-16.5, 16.8 to 16.10, 16.15
to 16.18, 16.21 to 16.23, 16.25 and 16.32 of the charge sheet
as well as paras-16.6 to 16.11, 16.14 and 16.20 of the
supplementary charge sheet. Learned senior counsel further
submitted that at every stage of the case, accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) played his role and at his behest,
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
cases were filed against the approver and thus, bail granted
in his favour has to be cancelled.
21. Sri P.Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, stated
that investigation regarding larger conspiracy is still in
progress. Referring to the order that is rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2023,
learned senior counsel submitted that even a default bail can
be cancelled and thus, accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) has to be sent behind the bars.
22. Vehemently opposing the relief sought for by CBI and
contradicting the submissions made by the learned Special
Public Prosecutors for CBI as well as learned senior counsels
who represented respondent No.2, Sri D.Seshadri Naidu,
learned senior counsel, who appeared on behalf of
respondent No.1, stated that CBI after long lapse of time
suddenly woke up and filed an application for cancellation of
bail, that too, without any reasonable cause or affording
sufficient reasons and therefore, the request of CBI was
dishonoured both by the Sessions Court and the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. Learned senior counsel
referring to various dates of incidents, including the date of
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
arrest of accused No.1 (respondent No.1) and the date on
which default bail was granted, contended that though CBI
took up investigation on 09.7.2020 and filed charge sheet,
thereafter, no application for cancellation of bail was moved
till 02.11.2021. Learned senior counsel stated that the
reasons for failure to move such an application earlier are not
known. Learned senior counsel submitted that CBI continued
its investigation from 09.7.2020 and filed charge sheet on
26.10.2021 and in that interregnum period, no application
whatsoever was filed for cancellation of bail. Learned senior
counsel stated that failure on part of CBI to move such
application for cancellation of bail itself goes to show that
accused No.1 (respondent No.1) did not interfere with any of
the investigation process and was co-operating with the
investigating agency. Learned senior counsel further
submitted that CBI made its first attempt for getting the bail
cancelled on 02.11.2020 by filing an application before the
Sessions Court, Kadapa, but the request of CBI was
negatived as the same lacks merits. Learned senior counsel
submitted that the episode of approver then happened and
later, CBI filed supplementary charge sheet. On 31.01.2022,
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
another attempt was made for cancellation of bail by filing a
petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi and by order dated 16.3.2022, the said
application was also dismissed. Learned senior counsel
stated that the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2023. Learned
senior counsel stated that the point that fell for consideration
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is whether a default bail
can be cancelled and the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a
finding to the effect that the default bail can be cancelled, but
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not gone into the correctness
of the order rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi. Learned senior counsel also stated that accused
No.1 (respondent No.1) was summoned by CBI for about 70
to 100 times and he attended every time. At this juncture, the
Court intervened and questioned Sri N.Nagendar, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, whether accused No.1
(respondent No.1), indeed, appeared as submitted by the
learned senior counsel. Sri N.Nagendar, learned Special
Public Prosecutor, stated that accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) attended every time.
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
23. Continuing his submission, learned senior counsel
stated that during investigation i.e., between the date on
which CBI took up investigation and filed the charge sheet,
CBI never sought for cancellation of bail and further, the
order rendered by the Sessions Court by which the
application for cancellation of bail was dismissed still
remains unchallenged. Learned senior counsel also stated
that accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is not
contributory factor for the delay and indeed, there is no
observation to that effect by any of the Courts of all levels.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that there is not
even a needle of suspicion that accused No.1 (respondent
No.1 herein) contributed to the delay in investigation or
misled the investigation.
24. Also, referring to relevant case law i.e., the judgments
that are rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
between Bhuboni Sahu Vs. The King1, Bhiva Doulu Patil
Vs. State of Maharastra2 and Somasundaram @ Somu Vs.
MANU/PR/0047/1949
MANU/SC/0141/1962
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
State3, learned senior counsel stated that bail should not be
cancelled only basing on the testimony of an approver.
25. In the light of the submissions thus made and before
adverting to the merits of the case, the law governing the field
requires discussion.
26. While Chapter-V of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, deals with the law relating to arrest of persons and
their rights, Chapter-XXXIII of the same Code deals with
provisions relating to bail and bonds.
27. The relevant provisions so far as the present case are
concerned are Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. and more
specifically, Section 437 (5) and Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. Those
two provisions read as under:-
Section 437 (5) Cr.P.C-Any Court which has released a
person on bail under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2),
may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that
such person be arrested and commit him to custody.
Section 439(2)- A High Court or Court of Session may
direct that any person who has been released on bail
under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to
custody.
(2020)7 SCC 722
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
28. However, this Court is cautious of the fact that accused
No.1 was enlarged on statutory bail.
29. The purport of afore-mentioned provisions is to see that
bail granted under irrelevant considerations or where
subsequent events warrant recall of liberty, be entertained
and that the liberty granted should not be misused.
30. Catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
indicate the same. To start with, for proper recapitulation
and for the benefit of study, few are discussed hereunder.
31. In the case between State (Delhi Administration) Vs.
Sanjay Gandhi4, a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, while dealing with the circumstances under which bail
can be granted and the grounds on which the same can be
rejected and further discussing about the plea for
cancellation of bail thereafter, at paras 13 to 15 of the
judgment observed as follows:-
"13. Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one
thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite
another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a
non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such
a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the
(1978) 2 SCC 411
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
review of a decision already made and can by and large
be permitted only if, by reason of supervening
circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a
fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom
during the trial. The fact that prosecution witnesses
have turned hostile cannot by itself justify the
inference that the accused has won them over. A
brother, a sister or a parent who has seen the
commission of crime, may resile in the Court from a
statement recorded during the course of investigation.
That happens instinctively, out of natural love and
affection, not out of persuasion by the accused. The
witness has a stake in the innocence of the accused
and tries therefore to save him from the guilt. Likewise,
an employee may, out of a sense of gratitude, oblige
the employer by uttering an untruth without pressure
or persuasion. In other words, the objective fact that
witnesses have turned hostile must be shown to bear a
causal connection with the subjective involvement
therein of the respondent. Without such proof, a bail
once granted cannot be cancelled on the off chance or
on the supposition that witnesses have been won over
by the accused. Inconsistent testimony can no more be
ascribed by itself to the influence of the accused than
consistent testimony, by itself, can be ascribed to the
pressure of the prosecution. Therefore, Mr.Mulla is
right that one has to countenance a reasonable
possibility that the employees of Maruti like the
approver Yadav might have, of their own volition,
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
attempted to protect the respondent from involvement
in criminal charges. Their willingness now to oblige the
respondent would depend upon how much the
respondent has obliged them in the past. It is therefore
necessary for the prosecution to show some act or
conduct on the part of the respondent from which a
reasonable inference may arise that the witnesses have
gone back on their statements as a result of an
intervention by or on behalf of the respondent.
14. Before we go to the facts of the case, it is necessary
to consider what precisely is the nature of the burden
which rests on the prosecution in an application for
cancellation of bail. Is it necessary for the prosecution
to prove by a mathematical certainty or even beyond a
reasonable doubt that the witnesses have turned
hostile because they are won over by the accused? We
think not. The issue of cancellation of bail can only
arise in criminal cases, but that does not mean that
every incidental matter in a criminal case must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt like the guilt of the
accused. Whether an accused is absconding and
therefore his property can be attached under Section
83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whether a search of
person or premises was taken as required by the
provisions of Section 100 of the Code, whether a
confession is recorded in strict accordance with the
requirements of Section 164 of the Code and whether a
fact was discovered in consequence of information
received from an accused as required by Section 27
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
of the Evidence Act are all matters which fall peculiarly
within the ordinary sweep of criminal trials. But
though the guilt of the accused in cases which involve
the assessment of these facts has to be established
beyond a reasonable doubt, these various facts are not
required to be proved by the same rigorous standard.
Indeed, proof of facts by preponderance of probabilities
as in a civil case is not foreign to criminal
jurisprudence because, in cases where the statute
raises a presumption of guilt as, for example, the
Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused is entitled to
rebut that presumption by proving his defence by a
balance of probabilities. He does not have to establish
his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The same
standard of proof as in a civil case applies to proof of
incidental issues involved in a criminal trial like the
cancellation of bail of an accused. The prosecution,
therefore, can establish its case in an application for
cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of
probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper
or has tampered with its witnesses. Proving by the test
of balance of probabilities that the accused has abused
his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension
that he will interfere with the course of justice is all
that is necessary for the prosecution to do in order to
succeed in an application for cancellation of bail.
15. Our task therefore is to determine whether, by the
application of the test of probabilities, the prosecution
has succeeded in proving its case that the respondent
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
has tampered with its witnesses and that there is a
reasonable apprehension that he will continue to
indulge in that course of conduct if he is allowed to
remain at large. Normally, the High Court's findings
are treated by this Court as binding on such issues
but, regretfully, we have to depart from that rule since
the High Court has rejected incontrovertible evidence
on hyper-technical considerations. If two views of the
evidence were reasonably possible and the High Court
had taken one view, we would have been disinclined to
interfere therewith in this appeal under Article 136 of
the Constitution. But the evidence points in one
direction only, leaving no manner of doubt that the
respondent has misused the facility afforded to him by
the High Court by granting anticipatory bail to him."
32. Further, taking into consideration the nature of the
litigation, the ultimate findings given are as under:-
"26. But avoidance of undue hardship or harassment
is the quintessence of judicial process. Justice, at all
times and in all situations, has to be tempered by
mercy, even as against persons who attempt to
tamper with its processes. The apprehension of the
prosecution is that "Maruti witnesses" are likely to be
won over. The instances discussed by us are also
confined to the attempted tampering of Maruti
witnesses like Yadav and Charan Singh, though we
have excluded Charan Singh's complaint from our
consideration. Since the appellant's counsel has
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
assured us that the prosecution will examine the
Maruti witnesses immediately and that their evidence
will occupy no more than a month, it will be enough
to limit the cancellation of respondent's bail to that
period. We hope and trust that no unfair advantage
will be taken of our order by stalling the proceedings
or by asking for a stay on some pretext or the other. If
that is done, the arms of law shall be long enough.
Out of abundant caution, we reserve liberty to the
State to apply to the High Court, if necessary, but
only if strictly necessary. We are hopeful that the
State too will take our order in its true spirit.
27.In the result, we allow the appeal partly, set aside
the judgment of the High Court dated April, 11,
cancel the respondent's bail for a period of one month
from today and direct that he be taken into custody.
Respondent will, in the normal course, be entitled to
be released on fresh bail on the expiry of the aforesaid
period. The learned Sessions Judge will be at liberty
to fix the amount and conditions of bail. The order of
anticipatory bail will stand modified to the extent
indicated herein."
33. The second decision is the one that is rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Kanwar Singh
Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and another5, wherein a
two-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with the
(2012) 12 SCC 180
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
subject matter i.e., regarding the grounds for cancellation of
bail at para 10 of the judgment held as follows:-
"10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide
powers on the High Court and the Court of Session
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. The court has to only opine as to whether
there is prima facie case against the accused. The
court must not undertake meticulous examination of
the evidence collected by the police and comment on
the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature
comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair
trial. While cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) of
the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with
the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper
with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere
with the due course of justice or evade the due course
of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where
the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities
resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting
bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie
involvement of the accused or takes into account
irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the
question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court
or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling
the bail. Such orders are against the well-recognised
principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such
orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to
miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening
circumstances such as the propensity of the accused
to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc.
would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The
High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel
such bail orders particularly when they are passed
releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes
because they ultimately result in weakening the
prosecution case and have adverse impact on the
society. Needless to say that though the powers of this
Court are much wider, this Court is equally guided by
the above principles in the matter of grant or
cancellation of bail."
34. The third one is also that of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case between Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana6,
wherein pointing out that very cogent and overwhelming
1995 SCC (1) 349
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
circumstances are necessary for an order directing
cancellation of bail already granted, at para 4 of the judgment
observed as follows:-
"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail so 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 accused to
retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail
during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost
sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel
the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears
to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant
for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the first
instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
35. The three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case between X Vs. State of Telangana and another7,
dealing with the same issue, at paras 17 and 18 of the
judgment held as follows:-
"17. The accused had the benefit of an order granting
him anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory bail
was cancelled principally on the ground that he had
not disclosed the pendency of a prosecution against
him in the 2G Spectrum case. The Court has been
informed during the course of the hearing that the said
prosecution has ended in an acquittal. Regular bail
was granted by the High Court on 17-11-2017 [Karim
Morani v. State of Telangana, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd
533] in the present case. The second FIR which was
lodged on 22-11-2017 is not, in our view, a
supervening circumstance of such a nature as would
warrant the cancellation of the bail which was granted
by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused has submitted that the lodging of
the second FIR, four days after the order of bail is
merely an attempt to bolster a case based on a
supervening event and that it suffers from vagueness
and a complete absence of details. We are not inclined
to make any further observations and leave the matter
there. Above all, the Court must bear in mind that it is
a settled principle of law that bail once granted should
(2018) 16 SCC 511
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a
supervening event has been made out. We find that to
be absent in the present case.
18. For the above reasons, we hold that the order of
the High Court allowing the application for bail cannot
be faulted. Moreover, no supervening circumstance has
been made out to warrant the cancellation of the bail.
There is no cogent material to indicate that the
accused has been guilty of conduct which would
warrant his being deprived of his liberty."
36. Referring to the afore-mentioned decisions i.e., the
decision in Dolat Rams' case (6th referred supra) and the
decision in X's case (7th cited supra), Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case between Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab8
at para 10 of the order observed as under:-
" In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited
decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court
has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored
relevant material available on record which renders
the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity
of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal
impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the
investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a
few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere
in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of
2021 SCC Online 854
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
justice and to bolster the administration of criminal
justice system. This Court has repeatedly viewed that
while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which
is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the
accused to influence prosecution witnesses,
threatening the family members of the deceased,
fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in
the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked."
37. Learned senior counsels appearing for accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) in support of his submission that
bail once granted cannot be easily cancelled, relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between
Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar9, wherein the Court at
para 22 of the order held as under:-
"The result of our discussion and the case-law in this:
An order for release on bail made under the proviso to
section 167(2) is not defeated by lapse of time, the filing
of the charge sheet or by remand to custody under
section 309(2). The order for release on bail may
however be cancelled under section 437(5) or section
439 (2). Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail,
broadly, are, interference or attempt to interfere with the
due course of administration of justice, or evasion or
attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the
liberty granted to him. The due administration of justice
may be interfered with by intimidating or suborning
(1986) 4 SCC 481
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
witnesses, by interfering with investigation, by creating
or causing disappearance of evidence etc. The course of
justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by
leaving the country or going underground or otherwise
placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He
may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in
similar or other unlawful acts. Where bail has been
granted under the proviso to section 167(2) for the
default of the prosecution in not completing the
investigation in sixty days, after the defect is cured by
the filing of a charge sheet, the prosecution may seek to
have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has
committed a non-bailable offence and that it is
necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. In
the last mentioned case, one would expect very strong
grounds indeed."
38. Thus, all these decisions in one voice state and
indicate that grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on
differing footing. Interference or attempt to interfere with the
due course of investigation or administration of justice is one
of the prominent factors for cancellation of bail. The
impediments created or attempts to create such impediments
in the fair investigation should not be overlooked.
39. In the case on hand, as earlier discussed, the main
grievance of CBI is that accused No.1 (respondent No.1
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
herein) is interfering with the investigation. The submission
of the learned Special Public Prosecutor is that the presence
of accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) outside itself is
sufficient to make the witnesses fear of revealing the true
facts and thus, hampering the investigation. Learned Special
Public Prosecutor also stated that accused No.1 (respondent
No.1 herein) played prominent role in larger conspiracy.
40. Referring to the findings given by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the order rendered in Criminal Appeal No.37 of
2023, learned Special Public Prosecutor stated that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the order of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and thus, there is no
legal sanctity to the findings given and thus, the observations
made in the said order should not be looked into. Learned
Special Public Prosecutor also stated that when inquest has
to be conducted at the scene of offence, inquest was
conducted at the hospital, that too, at the instance of
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), which itself speaks
volumes. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also stated that
when CBI is trying to examine the crucial witnesses, at the
instance of accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), several
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
complaints are being made against CBI officials and thus,
CBI is unable to proceed with fair investigation.
41. Supporting the said submission, learned senior counsel
who appeared for respondent No.2 stated that there are
several laches in the investigation initially and there was
inordinate delay. Learned senior counsel also stated that
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) misused his liberty
and he would continue to do so and therefore, there is every
requirement to effect his arrest and remand to prison.
42. However, the submission of the learned senior counsel
who appeared for accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is
that though there was sufficient opportunity for CBI to file
such an application for cancellation of bail, it did not do so
and it kept quiet for a long period of more than 14 months.
Learned senior counsel also stated that there are no special
reasons as to why CBI suddenly moved an application before
the Sessions Court for cancellation of bail and likewise, there
are no reasons as to why the order of dismissal of the
application filed by CBI for cancellation of bail was not
challenged before the higher forum. Learned senior counsel
also stated that in the orders rendered by the High court of
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, reference was made to the
laches on part of CBI and those laches which were pointed
out were not referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
decision. Learned senior counsel also stated that accused
No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) was co-operating with the
investigating agency at every stage and he appeared as and
when required before CBI. Learned senior counsel further
stated that no specific instance is shown that accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) failed to comply with the orders of
CBI. In this regard, learned senior counsel brought to the
notice of this Court that accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) also subjected himself to polygraph test. Learned
senior counsel, therefore, seeks to dismiss the application
filed for cancellation of bail.
43. As per the version of CBI, the deceased was killed
brutally. Through the charge sheets i.e., primary and
supplementary, CBI has projected that it is accused No.1
(respondent No.1 herein) who had entered into the house of
the deceased in the night of the incident and thereafter, as
per the conspiracy, opened the door and paved way for
accused Nos.2 to 4 to enter into the house. The version of
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
CBI is also that the conspiracy to kill the deceased was
hatched on 10.02.2019 at the house of accused No.1 wherein
accused Nos.2 to 4 participated and discussed. Also, the
version of CBI is that as part of the plan, the street dog which
accused Nos.1 to 4 feared to cause hindrance was killed and
thereafter, care was taken that the trusted servant of the
deceased by name Rajasekhar would not return to the house
of the deceased on the date of the incident. The case of CBI is
also that on opening the door by accused No.1 (respondent
No.1 herein), accused Nos.2 to 4 entered into the house of the
deceased armed with deadly weapon i.e., axe and thereafter,
hacked the deceased brutally to death. The case of CBI is
also that after attacking the deceased initially and causing
injuries, he was made to write a letter throwing blame on the
driver by name Prasad and thereafter, the deceased was
taken to the bath room and killed. The case of CBI is also
that after killing the deceased, accused Nos.2 to 4 escaped
from the point of entry and thereafter, accused No.1 came out
of the house, threatened watchman-Ranganna not to disclose
anything and thereafter, left the place. The further case of
CBI is that in the early morning, accused No.1 (respondent
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
No.1 herein) along with accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy
entered into the house of the deceased and got the blood
stains at the scenes of offence cleaned, the wounds dressed
up and thereafter, gave publicity that the deceased died due
to blood vomiting and heart attack. Also, the case of CBI is
that a huge sum of Rupees Forty crores was offered for
execution of the plan and some of the amount was seized
from a close associate of accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri by
name Syed Munna. Also, the case of CBI is that the
handwriting of the deceased and his signature that was
present on the letter was subjected to Forensic Psychological
Analysis, which gave a finding that the hand writing is poor
and messy and co-ordination between the pen and the brain
is not observed. Further, the case of CBI is that the Google
location of accused No.2-Y.Sunil Yadav which was obtained
from Google co-ordinates reveal his presence at the scene of
offence on the intervening night of 14/15-3-2019 at 02:42:04
hours.
44. Apart from these facts, the version of CBI is that
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), after commission of
the crime, is interfering with the investigating process and
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
that he is threatening the witnesses. In this regard, the
submission of the learned senior counsel who appeared for
respondent No.1 is that no material whatsoever is placed
before this Court or the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi or before the Sessions Court concerned that
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) at any time contacted
any of the witnesses or threatened or at least requested them
to speak in his favour or in favour of any of the suspects.
Learned senior counsel stated that CBI has not produced any
material to show that accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein)
is interfering with the investigating process and therefore, it
would be wholly undesirable to cancel the bail granted and to
remand him to judicial custody.
45. In the case on hand, prima facie participation of
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) in the commission of
crime is projected through the preliminary as well as
supplementary charge sheets. Further, learned Special Public
Prosecutor has brought to the notice of this Court the
contents of the statement of the watchman-Ranganna that
was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein and
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
whereby he stated that he did not disclose the true facts due
to the fear of accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein).
46. While discussing the merits of an application for grant
of bail or the application filed for cancellation of bail granted,
the Court is not expected to give its findings in certain with
regard to the guilt or otherwise of any of the accused. Also,
neither the prosecuting agency nor the accused are at
liability to project their version by producing proof beyond all
reasonable doubt.
47. In the case on hand, the consistent version of CBI from
the beginning is that hindrance is being caused for proper
investigation to be conducted and that too, timely.
48. Admittedly, the investigation could not be concluded for
various reasons, of course, not wholly attributable to the
conduct of the accused.
49. As per the version of the CBI, the accused are causing
such hindrance. Also, in the grounds urged, CBI has pointed
out that there is destruction of positive evidence from the
initial stage by accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) and
his associates and to flee from the clutches of justice, a false
theory of death of the deceased due to cardiac arrest was
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
projected. It is also narrated that three witnesses namely
Gangadhar Reddy, Shankar Reddy and M.V.Krishna Reddy
are suspected to have come under the influence of accused
No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) and accused No.5. Further,
there is an allegation that accused No.5-Gajjala Uma
Shankar Reddy requested Gangadhar Reddy to take
responsibility of the murder of the deceased and that he
would offer Rupees Ten crores.
50. As rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel
appearing for accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), proof in
certainty is not produced by CBI to establish these facts.
However, when the facts of the case and the culminating
circumstance are gone through including the statement given
by one Ranganna at the crucial stage and the statement
given by him before the Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that fear exists in the minds
of the witnesses about the consequences. Learned Special
Public Prosecutor stated that one can easily presume the
consequences, if any, which would be faced by the witnesses
from the accused or through their aided persons in heinous
offences like this.
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
51. This is not a case where on merits bail was granted in
favour of accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein). Accused
No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) obtained default bail when the
investigating agency i.e., Special Investigation Team could not
complete the investigation within the statutory period of 90
days. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision rendered in
Criminal appeal No.37 of 2023, more so, at paras 11 to 13 of
the order held as follows:-
"11. Therefore, there is no absolute bar as observed
and held by the High Court in the impugned judgment
and order that once a person is released on default bail
under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail cannot be
cancelled on merits and his bail can be cancelled on
other general grounds like tampering with the
evidence/witnesses; not co-operating with the
investigating agency and/or not cooperating with the
concerned Trial Court etc.
12. As such, we are in complete agreement with the
view taken by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.
The submission on behalf of the respondent - original
Accused No. 1 and the view taken by the High Court in
the impugned judgment and order that once an
accused is released on default bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail cannot be cancelled on merits
is accepted, in that case, it will be giving a premium to
the lethargic and/or negligence, may be in a given case
of deliberate attempt on the part of the investigating
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
agency not to file the charge sheet within the
prescribed time period. In a given case, even if the
accused has committed a very serious offence, may be
under the NDPS or even committed murder(s), still
however, he manages through a convenient
investigating officer and he manages not to file the
charge sheet within the prescribed time limit
mentioned under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and got
released on default bail, it may lead to giving a
premium to illegality and/or dishonesty. As observed
hereinabove, such release of the accused on default
bail is not on merits at all, and is on the eventuality
occurring in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167.
However, subsequently on curing the defects and filing
the charge sheet, though a strong case is made out
that an accused has committed the very serious
offence and non-bailable crime, the Court cannot
cancel the bail and commit the person into custody
and not to consider the gravity of the offence
committed by the accused, the Courts will be loathe for
such an interpretation, as that would frustrate the
justice. The Courts have the power to cancel the bail
and to examine the merits of the case in a case where
the accused is released on default bail and released not
on merits earlier. Such an interpretation would be in
furtherance to the administration of justice.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court dismissing the application for
cancellation of the bail filed by the C.B.I. under Section
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
439(2) Cr.P.C. deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside."
52. Having regard to the allegations levelled, this Court is of
the view that accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) was
clearly entitled for a default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
and this Court is also of the view that except for default bail,
having regard to the gravity in the allegations levelled and the
incidents occurred thereafter i.e., after the murder of the
deceased, accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is not
entitled for a regular bail. A strong case is made out against
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) by CBI. Also, though
it is contended that it is not accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) who offered any amount for taking the blame and it is
not accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) who participated
in any of the subsequent events which resulted for the
delayed investigation, this Court is of the view that when
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is part of larger
conspiracy, his role in the subsequent events cannot be
secluded and looked in isolation.
53. A meticulous glance of entire material that is brought
on record leaves the Court to wonder, however without
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
expressing any opinion on merits, but based on the version of
CBI, as to why blood stains at the scene offence were cleaned
under the supervision of accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) and accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy. As to why
the body of the deceased was dressed up keeping the doors of
the room bolted. As to why Circle Inspector-Shankaraiah did
not raise any objection while alleged happenings continued.
As to why a Police officer in the rank of Circle Inspector could
not prima facie come to an opinion whether the place of
occurrence depicts the natural death of the deceased or
otherwise. As to why information was not furnished to the
kith and kin of the deceased immediately. As to why without
conducting even the inquest, the dead body was shifted. As to
why huge amount was found at the locker of the close
associate of accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri.
54. The version of CBI is that in the larger conspiracy,
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) along with accused
No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy played a prominent role. The
version of CBI is also that when CBI called accused No.4 and
others to New Delhi, ten days prior to the date of their
supposed appearance before CBI, accused No.5-D.Siva
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
Shankar Reddy called accused No.4-Shaik Dasthagiri to the
house of Bayupu Reddy at Pulivendula and briefed him not to
disclose their names. The version of CBI is also that one
Bharath Yadav accompanied accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) on his visit to New Delhi, as per the instructions of
accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy, to keep a watch.
55. The prosecuting agency with well reasons has explained
the close association of accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) and accused No.5-D.Siva Shankar Reddy. Therefore,
sound suspicion exists with regard to their fairness in co-
operating with the investigating agency for fair investigation.
56. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
between Sanjay Gandhi (referred 4th supra), the prosecution
can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail
by showing preponderance of probabilities that the accused
has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses.
Their Lordships held that proving by the test of balance of
probabilities that the accused has abused his liberty or that
there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with
the course of justice is all that is necessary for the
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
prosecution to do in order to succeed in an application for
cancellation of bail
57. Thus, having regard to the grounds projected by CBI
and as it is pointed out convincingly that the presence of
accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) outside itself sends a
signal to the witnesses to shut their mouths, this Court is of
the view that the liberty granted to accused No.1 (respondent
No.1 herein) has to be curtailed to enable CBI to proceed with
the investigation. However, this Court has considered the fact
that accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is enjoying the
liberty granted through the default bail since 27.6.2019. Also,
this Court has taken note of the fact that CBI could not
conclude the investigation despite of lapse of considerable
time from the date of the incident.
58. Having considered all the above aspects and with an
intention to facilitate CBI to conclude its investigation in a
fair and effective manner, the request of CBI is honoured.
59. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Accused
No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is directed to surrender on or
before 05.5.2023. On his surrender, he shall be remanded to
Dr CSL, J
Crl.P.No.2995 of 2023
judicial custody till 30.6.2023 which is the outer limit fixed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for completion of investigation
by CBI vide Orders in Criminal Appeal No.1251 of 2021,
dated 24.4.2023. In case, accused No.1 (respondent No.1
herein) fails to surrender before the Court concerned on or
before the said date, CBI is at liberty to take him into custody
as provided under law and produce him before the Court of
Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The Court
of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, is
directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on 01.7.2023, on his
executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum
each to the satisfaction of the said Court.
________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
27.4.2023
Note:
LR copy to be marked.
B/o
dr
