Telangana High Court
Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy vs The State on 4 September, 2023
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7545 AND 7565 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections - 437 and 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to grant
regular bail to the petitioners herein, A.6 and A.7 in S.C.No.1 of 2023
pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.
The offences alleged against them are punishable under sections 120-B
read with Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
'the IPC').
2. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, and Sri Ch.Siddardha Sarma,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Tenwar, learned Spl.Public
Prosecutor for CBI and Sri B.Nalin Kunar, learned Senior counsel
representing Ms.Tekuru Swetcha, learned counsel appearing for 2nd
respondent.
3. S.C.No.1 of 2023 is commonly came to be known as
Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy murder case. It involves murder of said
Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy (hereinafter called as 'Deceased'), a former
Member of Legislative Assembly of erstwhile combined State of Andhra
2
Pradesh and also a former Member of Parliament. He is a brother of
Former Chief Minister of erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh
i.e. late Dr.Y.S.Raja Sekhar Reddy, and he is paternal uncle of present
Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh i.e. Mr.Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy.
4. On 15.03.2019 in the morning hours, the Deceased was lying in
a pool of blood at his house in Pulivendula, Kadapa Y.S.R.District. On
the same day, the First Information Report bearing No.84 of 2019 was
registered by Pulivendula Police Station under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on
the report of Sri M.V.Krishna Reddy, Personal Assistant to the Deceased.
After the inquest, the provision of law was altered to Section 302 of IPC.
The State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to
investigate the alleged murder of the Deceased.
5. Dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the SIT, wife of
the Deceased approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
by way of filing a writ petition vide W.P.No.3944 of 2019 seeking
entrustment of investigation to CBI from SIT. Vide order dated
11.03.2020, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, considering the
seriousness of the offences and the allegations made therein, allowed the
said writ petition and entrusted the investigation to CBI. High Court also
directed the CBI to conduct investigation into the allegations of larger
3
conspiracy and destruction of evidence and also directed the CBI, to
complete investigation as expeditiously as possible and file final report.
6. In compliance with the said order, the CBI registered a case
bearing RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi on 09.07.2020 and
launched investigation into the death of the Deceased. After conducting
investigation, CBI filed charge sheet dated 26.10.2021 against A.1 to A.4
i.e. Thumallapalli Gangi Reddy (A.1), Yadati Sunil Yadav (A.2), Gajjala
Uma Sankar Reddy (A.3) and Shaik Dasthagiri (A.4).
7. In the said charge sheet dated 26.10.2021, it is stated by the CBI
that the case requires further investigation. The accused therein were
charged under Section 302 read with 120-B IPC. During the course of
further investigation, A.4 was examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
wherein he confessed the commission of murder of the Deceased and
stated the involvement of A.5 to A.8 including the petitioners herein in
commission of the said murder. A.4 later turned as an Approver and was
granted pardon under Section 306 of Cr.P.C.
8. On 31.01.2022 a supplementary charge sheet was filed
arraigning Sri D.Siva Shankar Reddy, as A.5 for the offences punishable
under Sections 201 read with Section 301 of IPC. Additional charges
4
under Sections 201, 506 and 120-B read with 302 IPC were framed
against Sri Thumallapalli Gangi Reddy (A.1).
9. It is apt to note that A.6 filed a complaint on 09.02.2022 under
Section 200 read with 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Special
Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa against the then
Investigating Officer in the said crime i.e. Mr. Ram Singh. In the said
complaint, A.6 alleged that he was forced and coerced by the said
Investigating Officer to implicate certain people including A.8 and the
petitioners herein in the murder of the Deceased. The learned Magistrate
referred the said complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.02.2022 and police registered a case in
Cr.No.29 of 2022 against the said Investigating Officer for the offences
punishable under Sections 195-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. He
has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Vide Crl.P.No.1258 of
2022 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati and the said
Court granted stay of all further proceedings arising out of the said FIR
vide order dated 22.03.2022.
10. In the rejoinder to the counter filed by A.6, the CBI stated that
A.6, the petitioners along with others, involved in the murder of the
Deceased.
5
11. 2nd respondent herein and her mother filed writ petition vide
W.P.(Crl) No.169 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Apex Court seeking
transfer of the trial arising out of the said crime pending before the CBI
Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to CBI Special Court, Hyderabad
or CBI Special Court, New Delhi and also to direct the CBI to complete
investigation at the earliest. The Apex Court noted the allegations of
larger conspiracy in the death of the Deceased, destruction of
evidence and involvement of the petitioners herein and vide order
dated 29.11.2022, transferred the trial arising out of the aforesaid crime
and for further investigation to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad. On
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, filed second
supplementary charge sheet on 28.06.2023.
12. Learned Principle Special Judge, for CBI Cases, Hyderabad
vide order dated 13.07.2023 took cognizance of the same against the
petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read
with 302 and Section 201 of IPC in S.C.No.1 of 2023.
13. In the aforesaid charge sheet, it is stated by CBI that the
investigation conducted by them revealed that the petitioners along with
A.8, A.5 and A.1 and others are found involved behind the larger
conspiracy of murder of Deceased and destruction of evidence at the
6
scene of crime. The petitioners and other accused either by themselves or
by their associates all are active in influencing the witnesses with sole
motive to delay with the investigation.
14. The investigation further revealed that in the early morning of
15.03.2019 before the information of death of the Deceased was broke
out, A.6, A.5 and others were also present at the house of A.7 and A.8.
They were waiting for the formal intimation from any third person so that
they could immediately proceed to the scene of crime in order to destroy
the evidence as conveyed by A.1 to three other co-assailants i.e. A.2, A.3
and A.4 at 5.20A.M. at his residence, where A.1 had assured to all the
three co-accused/assailants that he had spoken to A.8 and A.5 and they
will take care of whole affairs besides he is also proceeding to the house
of the Deceased.
15. CBI further contended that the investigation revealed that
Sri N.Siva Prakash Reddy/A.5 informed to A.8 through Mobile phone at
6.26.15 A.M. that the Deceased died. Thereafter, A.8, A.5 and A.6 and
some other close associates/assisting personnel immediately proceeded
after receiving information and reached in two or three vehicles at the
house of the Deceased. The Forensic analysis of the Google takeout of
A.6 carried out by CFSL, New Delhi, would reveal that A.6 was already
7
present at the house of A.7 and A.8 at around 6.A.M. in the morning of
15.03.2019. It is also found that location of mobile phone of A.6 was
inside the house of A.8 at 6.25.25 A.M. and just two minutes thereafter at
6.27.28 A.M. location of his mobile phone was found outside the house
of the Deceased. Thereafter, he was found inside the house of the
Deceased from 6.29 A.M. to 6.31 A.M. A.8 had received call from
N.Siva Prakash Reddy/A.5, at 6.26.15 A.M and within a minute, they
reached at the house of the Deceased. The said fact substantiates Section
306 Cr.P.C. statement of Approver Mr. Shaik Dasthagiri (A.4) that A.1
had already spoken with A.8 and A.5 prior to 5.20 A.M. on 15.03.2019
who had assured A.1 that they would take care of everything and then he
was also proceeding there (at the scene of crime) and he would manage it.
Subsequent act of destruction of evidence at the scene of crime was done
by A.7 and other co-accused was in furtherance of the conspiracy.
16. The investigation further revealed that A.5 and A.8 along with
A.6 and other persons after entering into the house of the Deceased, it
was seen blood present in the bedroom and dead body lying in pool of
blood in the bathroom with visible gruesome injuries on the head.
Thereafter, A.8 using mobile phone number bearing (9000006243) of his
Personal Assistant Mr. Raghava Reddy, made a call to Sri J.Shankaraiah
8
(9121100544), the then Circle Inspector, Pulivendula and informed him
about the death of the Deceased and that the Deceased died due to heart
attack, heavy blood vomiting which is present at bed room and bath
room. A.8 further informed to the then C.I. to send 3 to 4 constables for
bandobusth. Thus, it is evident that A.8 had called police only after
seeing the dead body of the Deceased and discussing the matter with A.5
in order to conceal the design of murder. It was conveyed that the
Deceased died due to heart attack although it was a case of murder. It
shows that the fake story of heart attack and blood vomiting was
propagated / flouted in a pre-meditated manner to give it colour of natural
death as a part of conspiracy. A.7 also joined the co-accused and actively
facilitated destruction of evidence at the scene of crime.
17. While the destruction of evidence at scene of crime was going
on, several persons visited the scene of crime and some of them were
noticed that bed room was bolted from inside by A.6 and he was allowing
only selected persons to enter inside the bed room. The persons who
visited the scene of crime and on seeing the dead body clearly observed
that it was a case of murder and not heart attack.
18. Investigation further revealed that after cleaning of the blood in
the bed room and bath room, the dead body was shifted to the bed room.
9
In the meantime, A.7 and A.8 etc., were present in the hall discussed
about arrangement of bandages and cotton and thereafter, bandages and
cotton were arranged and got applied through Gajjala Jai Prakash Reddy,
a Compounder of E.C.Gangi Reddy Hospital, to hide the grievous injuries
as per instructions of A.6, A.5 and A.1. The flouting of the heart attack
theory followed by cleaning of blood from bedroom and bathroom,
application of cotton and bandages on the injuries and arrangement of
body freezer box was with the intention to conceal the design of murder
and to dress up the dead body with the floral decoration for public
display.
19. In furtherance of the conspiracy, A.5 had also threatened the
local Police Inspector Mr. J. Shankaraiah to keep mum and manage it as a
case of heart attack. Further A.5 and A.8 had also told J.Shankaraiah not
to register a case and there was no need to carry out post-mortem. The
petitioners and some other accused also convinced the visiting persons
that the Deceased died due to blood vomiting and also heart attack.
Several witnesses spoke about the said fact. Thus, the petitioners, A.8 and
other accused have made effort to influence the investigation as well as
witnesses of the case. The events unfolded during the course of
investigation indicate that several witnesses in the case are being
10
influenced at the behest of the petitioners, some of the accused persons
and their close associates. Three witnesses namely late Sh.Gangadhar
Reddy, an associate of the A.5, J.Shankaraiah, the then Circle Inspector
of Police, Pulivendula and M.V.Krishna Reddy, the Personal Assistant of
Deceased and complainant of the FIR are already apparently have come
under the influence of the accused persons and other conspirators. .
20. CBI further contended that the investigation further revealed
that the evidence on record in the form of oral documentary science and
medical clearly established that A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 executed murder
of the Deceased in furtherance of their conspiracy hatched by A.5 to A.8
and the destruction of evidence from the scene of crime which was done
by A.7 along with some other co-accused to cover up the murder and
projected it further that it is due to heart attack/blood vomiting. Thus, it is
evident that the destruction of evidence from the scene of crime is due to
integral part of conspiracy of murder of the Deceased.
21. Investigation further revealed that a plan for the execution of
the murder of the Deceased was chalked out at the behest of A.7, A.8 and
A.5 at the residence of A.1 at Pulivendula, Kadapa District, where other
three accused executing A.2, A.3 and A.4 also joined. The said fact was
11
also disclosed by A.4 Approver, in his statement recorded under Section
164 as well as under Section 306 of Cr.P.C.
22. Investigation further revealed that the petitioners herein and
A.8 are highly influential persons and there are serious allegations against
them. There is every possibility of their interference with the trial by
influencing the witnesses and threatening them. With the said
submissions, respondents sought to dismiss the present Criminal Petitions
for conducting of fair trial.
23. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing
Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, and Sri Ch.Siddardha Sarma, learned counsel for
the petitioners, would submit that in the charge sheet dated 26.10.2021,
there is no allegation against the petitioners herein. A.4 declared as
Approver. In his statement dated 25.08.2021 and 31.08.2021 stated about
alleged role played by the petitioners herein.
24. Referring to paragraph No.5 of W.P.No.66453 of 2023, he
would submit that due to political rivalry, opponents are targeting A.8
and his father A.7. He requested this Court to take judicial note of the
said paragraph No.15 and therefore, it is extracted below:-
15. Further, Dr. Y.S. Sunitha and Narreddy Rajasekhar Reddy
(son-in-law of the Deceased) have been in close contact with a current
TDP sitting MLC by name Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy @ B.Tech Ravi
and through him to Sri Chandrababu Naldu. It is pertinent to note that
12
before this relationship developed, Dr. Sunitha had never found any
fault with me for about one year after the crime and under the
influence of this relation with Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy (and by
extension, Sri Chandrababu Naidu) she is now making wild allegations
against me. It is submitted that after the death of her father, Dr. Y.S.
Sunitha had organized a press meet where she informed the public at
large that her father was working tirelessly till his last day for my
successful election as a Member of Parliament. This press meet was
widely broadcasted in many news channels. In fact she had also
mentioned the fact that Sri Vivekananda Reddy had campaigned door
to door in Jammalamadugu on 14-03-2019 (the day prior to his
murder) canvassing support from the public for my successful election
as MP, Kadapa constituency.
25. There are contradictions in the statement of the Approver
recorded under Section 161, 164 and 306 of Cr.P.C. CBI facilitated A.4
to get anticipatory bail. The Court below without considering the
seriousness of the case and also the role played by A.4, granted pardon to
him under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. and also anticipatory bail. The alleged
money was recovered in September, 2020. A.7 is aged about 72 years and
he is suffering with several old age ailments and in proof of the same, he
has filed medical reports. He was arrested on 16.04.2023 and entire
investigation is completed and therefore, he is entitled for bail. A.6 is
only an employee of the ECIL and he came to Pulivendula for two days.
Absolutely there is nothing against A.6 and the role played by him in
commission of offence is also not specifically mentioned. Just because he
is close associate of A.8, the CBI included his name in the present crime
and harassing him. The allegations leveled against A.5 are different to
13
the allegations leveled against A.6 and A.7. Therefore, A.6 and A.7 case
cannot be equated with the A.5's case and the allegations mentioned
therein. A.6 was arrested on 14.04.2023. Respondents - CBI being
premier Investigating Agency cannot rely upon Google takeout which has
no relevancy at all. He has also relied on some literature with regard to
the same. Without considering the said aspects, Court below dismissed
the bail petitions filed by both the petitioners. With the said submissions,
he sought bail to both the petitioners herein.
26. Whereas, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and
Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Tekuru
Swetcha, learned counsel for 2nd respondent would contend as follows:-
i. The allegations leveled against both the petitioners are serious in
nature and the offences committed by them are grave in nature.
ii. They are influential persons.
iii. They are very close to the present Chief Minister of Andhra
Pradesh.
iv. There is every possibility of the petitioners interfering with the trial
in which event, conducting of fair trial in S.C.No.1 of 2023 is not
possible.
14
v. While granting bail, this Court cannot consider the reliability of the
statement of the witnesses including the statement of A.4 Shaik
Dasthagiri, an Approver under Section 161, 164 and 306 of Cr.P.C.
both the A.6 and A.7 are standing on the same footing like A.5.
vi. The bail applications filed by A.5 were dismissed by the trial
Court, High Court and Apex Court. Therefore, the petitioners
herein are not entitled for bail.
vii. High Court of A.P. vide order dated 11.03.2020 in W.P.No.3944 of
2019 entrusted the investigation to CBI for the purpose of
conducting investigation with regard to larger conspiracy and
destruction of evidence.
viii. There are specific allegations against both the petitioners herein
with regard to the same. Both of them in connivance with the other
accused conspired in the murder of the Deceased and they tried to
destruct the evidence.
ix. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses
obtained analyst report from CFSL and also call data etc. with
regard to Google take out, which is also one of the methods of
collecting evidence and its reliability cannot be considered at the
15
time of considering the bail applications and it is for the trial Court
to consider the same.
x. Vide order dated 29.11.2022 in W.P.(Crl) No.169 of 2022, the
Hon'ble Apex Court transferred trial of S.C.No.1 of 2023 from
CBI Special Court, Kadapa to CBI Special Court, Hyderabad on
considering the nature of allegations made against all the accused
including the petitioners and also their positions.
xi. With the said submissions, they sought to dismiss the present
applications.
CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT:-
27. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer completed investigation
and filed charge sheet on 26.10.2021, first supplementary charge sheet on
31.01.2022 and second supplementary charge sheet on 30.06.2023. 2nd
supplementary charge sheet was taken on file on 13.07.2023 against both
the petitioners herein/A.6 and A.7 for the offences punishable under
Section 120-B read with Section 302 and 201 of IPC.
28. Perusal of the aforesaid charge sheets would reveal that, prima
facie, there are serious allegations against both the petitioners herein. The
said allegations are narrated supra. A.6 was arrested on 14.04.2023
whereas, A.7 was arrested on 16.04.2023.
16
29. As discussed supra, these two criminal petitions are bail
petitions filed by A.6 and A.7.
30. It is relevant to note that this Court referred the principles and
factors to be considered while granting or rejecting bail application as
emphasized by the Apex Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia 1,
in Kancherla Sri Haribabu @ K.Babji Vs. State of Telangana 2. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below:-
19. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia 3, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J., speaking for the Court, discussed with
regard to the power of granting bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and held that the
power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is of a wide amplitude. Though
the grant of bail involves the exercise of discretionary power of the Court, it has to
be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In the said case,
the guiding factors for exercise of power to grant bail as held in Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh 4, were referred, which are as follows:
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order - but, however, calls
for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter
of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the
contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts,
however, do always vary from case to case...The nature of the offence is
one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the
crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however,
dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.
1
. (2020) 2 SCC 118
2
(2021) 1 ALT Crl.73
3
. (2020) 2 SCC 118
4
. (2002) 3 SCC 598
17
4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be
relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though
however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there
can be any. The considerations being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature
of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation
entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the
accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or
the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also
weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the
guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to
be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only
the element of genuineness that shall have to be (2002) 3 SCC 598
considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being
some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the Accused is entitled to an order of bail."
20. It was further held in the very same judgment that the determination of
whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous
factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and
a prima facie view of the involvement of the Accused are important. No straight
jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of
bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is
not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the Accused. That is a
matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a
prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the
offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of
the Accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has
been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and
18
ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set
aside bail.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the factors to be borne in mind
while considering an application for bail in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis
Chatterjee 5, and the said factors are as follows:
"(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
Accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the Accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
...
12. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant
considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the
vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal..."
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to the principles laid down by
it in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan 6, wherein it was held that the
Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as
a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the Accused is charged
of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would
suffer from non-application of mind.
23. By referring to the above said judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is
. (2010) 14 SCC 496
. (2004) 7 SCC 528
committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the
rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is
premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly
and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of the Judges to give reasoned
decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail
concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the
interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are
not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty bound to explain
the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.
31. In Deepak Yadav Vs. State of UP 7 a three Judges Bench of
Apex Court summarized the principles for grant or denial of bail.
Paragraph Nos.22 to 30 are relevant and the same are extracted below:-
22. As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
Vs. Ashish Chatterjee And Another, it is well-settled that the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
23. The decision in Prasanta (supra) (2010) 14 SCC 496) has been consistently
followed by this Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla
Babu(2012) 9 SCC 446), Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 16
SCC 797), Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 797),
Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. State of Karnataka(2017) 5 SCC 406), State of Orissa
Vs. Mahimananda Mishra (2018) 10 SCC 516)
(2022) 8 SCC 559
24. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of 'Y' Vs. State of
Rajasthan(2022) 9 SCC 269), authored by one of us (Hon'ble N.V. Ramana, CJI),
it has been observed as under :-
"24. The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic, and does not
suggest any application of mind. There is a recent trend of passing such orders
granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation
that "the facts and the circumstances" have been considered. No specific
reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court.
25. Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court
wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice. In the case of Mahipal
(Supra), this Court observed as follows:-
25. Merely recording "having perused the record" and "on the facts and
circumstances of the case" does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned
judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our
judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of
the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed.
Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done,
but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of
Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing
criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in
ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to
obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they
have arrived at a conclusion." (emphasis supplied)
25. For grant or denial of bail, the "nature of crime" has a huge relevancy.
The key consideration which govern the grant of bail were elucidated in the
judgment of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh14,
wherein it has been observed as under(SCCp.602,para4): -
"4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be
relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however,
the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The
considerations being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of
the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a
conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the
apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh
with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima
facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the
element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant
of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an
order of bail."
26. Similarly, the parameters to be taken into consideration for grant of bail
by the courts has been described in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan
alias Pappu Yadav ((2004) 7 SCC 528 as under : -
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well-settled. The Court
granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is
charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such
reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the
court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail; they are:
(a) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension
of threat to the complainant.
(c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge."
B. Recording of reasons for grant of bail by the High Court of the Sessions
Court
27. The importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can
never be undermined. There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in
cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious
offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion
has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
28. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (Supra)
held that the duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that
the discretion which is entrusted to the court, is exercised in a judicious manner.
The operative portion of the judgment reads as under : -
"38. We disapprove of the observations of the High Court in a succession of
orders in the present case recording that the Counsel for the parties "do not
press for a further reasoned order". The grant of bail is a matter which
implicates the liberty of the accused, the interest of the State and the victims
of crime in the proper administration of criminal justice. It is a well-settled
principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High
Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of
the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. These
observations while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding on the
outcome of the trial. But the Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to
apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the
purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. The consent of parties
cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has
either granted or refused bail. This is for the reason that the outcome of the
application has a significant bearing on the liberty of the accused on one hand
as well as the public interest in the due enforcement of criminal justice on the
other. The rights of the victims and their families are at stake as well. These
are not matters involving the private rights of two individual parties, as in a
civil proceeding. The proper enforcement of criminal law is a matter of public
interest. We must, therefore, disapprove of the manner in which a succession
of orders in the present batch of cases has recorded that counsel for the
"respective parties do not press for further reasoned order". If this is a
euphemism for not recording adequate reasons, this kind of a formula cannot
shield the order from judicial scrutiny.
36. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is a matter involving the
exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail
- as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial
institution - is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant
safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is
exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order
ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny
and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice." (emphasis
supplied)
29. Similarly, this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay (Supra), observed that :-
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order but, however, calls for
exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
Order for Bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to
record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of
the matter being dealt with by the Court and facts however do always vary from
case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be
considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of
bail and the same should and ought always be coupled with other circumstances
warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic
consideration for the grant of bail more heinous is a crime, the greater is the
chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual
matrix of the matter."
30. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 188
observed :-
"14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty
of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere
with an order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of
the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of
mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting
bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor, amongst other
things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the
nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing
16 (2020) 2 SCC 118 the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the
course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate
balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the
protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the
grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance
with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court
must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary
power to grant bail on a case by case basis. Inherent in this determination is
whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or
reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not
relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to
come to a conclusive finding."
32. In a recent judgment in Rohit Bishnoi Vs.State of Rajasthan 8,
the Apex Court held that it is not necessary for the Court to assign
elaborate reasons regarding the prosecution case while granting or
rejecting bail. Paragraph Nos.18 to 23 are relevant and the same are
extracted below:-
18. This Court has, on several occasions discussed the factors to be
considered by a Court while deciding a bail application. The primary
considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of
2023 (2) LS 109 SC
bail are: (i) The seriousness of the offence; (ii) The likelihood of the accused
fleeing from justice; (iii) The impact of release of the accused on the
prosecution witnesses; (iv) Likelihood of the accused tampering with
evidence. While such a list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that if a Court
takes into account such factors in deciding a bail application, it could be
concluded that the decision has resulted from a judicious exercise of its
discretion, vide Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh- [(1978) 1 SCC 240] ; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi-
[(2001) 4 SCC 280] ; Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - [(2018)
12 SCC 129].
19. This Court has also ruled that an order granting bail in a mechanical
manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of non-
application of mind, rendering it illegal, vide Ram Govind Upadhyay vs.
Sudarshan Singh- [(2002) 3 SCC 598]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis
Chaterjee - [(2010) 14 SCC 496]; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai
Hirabhai Makwana (Koli)- [(2021) 6 SCC 230] ; Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu
Kumar (supra).
20. Reference may also be made to recent decisions of this Court in Manoj
Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan- [2022 SCC OnLine SC 30] and
Jaibunisha vs. Meharban- [(2022) 5 SCC 465], wherein, on engaging in an
elaborate discussion of the case law cited supra and after duly
acknowledging that liberty of individual is an invaluable right, it has been
held that an order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and
cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is
liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising power under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
21. The Latin maxim "cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex" meaning
"reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law
ceases, so does the law itself," is also apposite.
22. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an
invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail,
courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an
accused and the facts that have a bearing on the case, particularly, when the
accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are
supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to
arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for grant
of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be
arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record.
Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment
that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence/s alleged against an
accused.
23. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned order above. At
the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions
forming part of the "reasoning" of the High Court while granting bail. As
noted from the afore-cited judgments, it is not necessary for a Court to assign
elaborate reasons or engage in a roving inquiry as to the merits of the
prosecution's case while granting bail, particularly, when the trial is at the
initial stages and the allegations against the accused would not have been
crystallized as such. Elaborate details cannot be recorded so as to give an
impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by
contrast, in an acquittal while passing an Order on an application for grant of
bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely
divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations
made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are
proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering
with the evidence; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima-facie
satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.
33. In the light of the aforesaid principles, coming to the facts of
the case on hand, as discussed supra, prima facie, there are serious
allegations against both the petitioners herein. A.7 is father of A.8 and he
is close relative of the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. Most of
the witnesses are from the State of Andhra Pradesh. A.8 is sitting
Member of Parliament from Kadapa Lok Sabha Constituency and A.7 is
his father.
34. As discussed supra, considering the said aspects and also the
fact that there is larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence, the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide order dated 11.03.2020 in
W.P.No.3944 of 2020 entrusted the investigation to CBI. On completion
of investigation, the CBI laid charge sheet dated 26.11.2021,
supplementary charge sheets on 31.01.2022 and 28.06.2023. During the
course of hearing, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, on
instructions, submitted that the investigation in the aforesaid S.C.No.1 of
2023 is over except obtaining some reports.
35. With regard to reliability of statements of Shaik Dasthagiri
(A.4), recorded under Sections 161, 164 and 306 of CrPC, it is relevant to
note that the order of grant of pardon to him was challenged by A.1 and
A.3 vide Crl.P.Nos.6976 and 6980 of 2021. Vide order dated 16.02.2022,
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, dismissed the said
petitions. In the said order, the High Court considered the principle laid
down by the Apex Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal 9 and also
four grounds enumerated to interfere with the order on the ground of
pardon. The said order was challenged in the Apex Court and vide order
dated 10.10.2022, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. Therefore, the
ground of pardon to the Approver i.e. Shaik Dasthagiri (A.4) attained
finality.
36. As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor
for CBI and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent,
2001 CrlLJ 1905
this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry regarding the prosecution case
while deciding bail petition and this Court cannot consider the reliability
of the statements of prosecution witnesses. The said principle was also
laid down by the Apex Court in Rohit Bishnoi supra.
37. It is also relevant to note that in Judgment dated 29.11.2022 in
W.P.(Crl) No.169 of 2022 filed by 2nd respondent and her mother, the
Apex Court considering the apprehension expressed by them, transferred
the trial from CBI Special Court, Kadapa to CBI Special Court,
Hyderabad. Paragraph Nos.10 to 14 are relevant and the same are
extracted below:-
10. Even two key witnesses, namely, Shaik Dastagiri and Ranganna are already
given the police protection under the Witnesses Protection Scheme, 2018,
pursuant to the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, considering the life
threat perception. Even in the response to the present petition, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State has also produced the orders passed by the
competent authority granting police protection to two witnesses.
11. As observed hereinabove, one of the witnesses who was to record his
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not appeared for recording of his
statement, though initially he volunteered to give the statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. The reason seems to be that thereafter his suspension order has been
revoked and he has been taken back on duty.
12. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it emerges that one of the key witnesses,
namely, K. Gangadhar Reddy, though initially he volunteered to give his
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the CBI submitted an application to
record his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., thereafter he did not turn up to get
his statement recorded and on the contrary he made a statement before the media
that he was being pressurized by the CBI. That thereafter he has died under
mysterious circumstances.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that
apprehension on the part of the petitioners being daughter a wife of the Deceased
that there may not be a fair trial and that there may not be any independent and
fair investigation with respect to further investigation on larger conspiracy and
destruction of evidence at the scene of incident is imaginary and/or has no
substance at all. The petitioners being daughter and wife of the Deceased have a
fundamental right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation
that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and
uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations. Under the circumstances, we are
of the opinion that this is a fit case to transfer the trial and further investigation on
larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence to the State other than the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
14. As per the settled position of law, justice is not to be done but the justice is
seen to have been done also. As per the settled position of law, free and fair trial is
sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and
fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at
stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system. However, at the same
time, looking to the large number of witnesses to be examined during the trial and
no hardship is caused to those witnesses, we are of the opinion that instead of
transferring the trial to New Delhi, it may be transferred to CB Special Court at
Hyderabad.
38. It is also relevant to note that A.6 filed a complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the then Investigating Officer i.e. Mr. Ram
Singh and the same was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate,
who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2022. Mr. Ram Singh, filed
a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P.No.1258 of 2022 on
High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted stay of all further proceedings.
39. It is apt to note that, prima facie, there is specific allegation
against the petitioners and other accused that the P.W.9, Sri
J.Shankaraiah, the then Circle Inspector has mentioned the role of the
petitioners and others in his statement given to CBI under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. He also expressed his willingness to give his statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He was placed under suspension and the same was
revoked thereafter. He has addressed a letter to the Superintendent of
Police, Kadapa stating that the CBI pressurized him to turn as an
Approver. P.W. 243, Sri Kalluru Gangi Reddy, also gave statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stating that A.5 told him that he along with A.7
and A.8 planned the murder of the Deceased and got it executed through
some new persons. Though he agreed to give statement under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. subsequently he refused to give the statement. Two
witnesses died in suspicious circumstances.
40. It is relevant to note that the Court below dismissed the bail
applications filed by A.5 vide order dated 02.03.2022 and the High Court
and the Apex Court also dismissed the bail applications filed by him.
41. As discussed supra, reliability of the statements of witnesses
including statement of Approver recorded under Sections 161, 164 and
306 of Cr.P.C can be considered by the trial Court during trial and the
same cannot be considered while deciding the bail application, more
particularly, in the light of the aforesaid findings of the Apex Court.
42. It is apt to note that in the aforesaid charge sheets CBI
specifically stated that the investigation conducted by Investigating
Officer, obtaining forensic analysis of CFSL, New Delhi, examination of
witnesses, re-examination of witnesses, investigation with regard to
source of money trail of Rs.40 Crores and as to the larger conspiracy
behind the commission of murder of Deceased and destruction of
evidence.
43. It is relevant to note that except A.4 - Approver, other accused
are in judicial custody. A.1 was released on default bail. This Court
cancelled the said default bail granted to A.1, he was sent to judicial
custody considering the contention of CBI that all the accused are
interfering with the investigation. This Court granted anticipatory bail to
A.8 and the same is under challenge before Hon'ble Apex Court.
44. A.6 is the close associate of A.8, A.7 and A.5. As per the
investigation conducted by CBI, he was found active in the intervening
night of 14/15.03.2019 and he had visited the house of A.8 and A.7
several times besides other relevant places. He was having knowledge of
death of the deceased early in the morning around 3.30 - 4.00 A.M. on
15.03.2019. He had prior knowledge of conspiracy and in order to
facilitate the coordinate amongst the co-accused persons, he had taken
leave on 15.03.2019 by submitting leave application on 14.03.2019. He
visited the house of A.8/A.7 on 13.03.2019 and 14.03.2019 in the evening
while A.2 also visited the house of A.8/A.7. He had visited the house of
A.8/A.7 in the early morning of 15.03.2019, accompanied A.8 and A.5
for destruction of evidence and thus he was fully aware of the murder of
the Deceased and thereafter, he was accompanied A.8 and others at the
residence of the Deceased. He was also involved in the destruction of
evidence at the scene of crime as he called his father Gajjela Jaya Prakash
Reddy at 6.35 A.M. on 15.03.2019 soon after he arrived at the residence
of the Deceased in conspiracy with other accused for applying cotton and
bandages on grievous injuries of the dead body of the Deceased to
conceal the same. Therefore, he is also part of criminal conspiracy for
murder of the Deceased and destruction of the evidence at the scene of
offence. In the light of the same, the contention of learned Senior
Counsel that there is nothing against A.6 cannot be accepted.
45. As discussed supra, there is prima facie, and reasonable ground
to believe that the petitioners herein/A.6 and A.7 have committed the
offence which is serious and grave in nature. They are very close relatives
of the present Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh and A.8,
father of A.7 is sitting Member of Parliament from Kadapa Parliament
Constituency. They are highly influential persons. All the witnesses are
from the State of Andhra Pradesh and thus there is every possibility of the
petitioners herein threatening/influencing the witnesses in which event, it
may not be possible to the trial Court to conduct trial in a fair and
transparent manner. Therefore, protection of witnesses and fairness of the
trial have to be taken care of. In the light of the said discussion, the
contention of Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners that in the event of threatening/influencing witnesses by
the petitioners/accused, Investigating Officer can seek for cancellation of
bail cannot be accepted.
46. Considering the said aspects and also perusal of entire C.D.
file, Court below dismissed the bail petitions filed by both the petitioners
vide orders dated 09.06.2023 and 15.05.2023 holding that, prima facie,
there are serious allegations against both the petitioners and prima facie
there is evidence that they are part of the conspiracy in committing
murder of the Deceased and that they are trying to destruct the evidence.
47. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not
inclined to grant bails to the petitioners herein at this stage and both the
criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.
48. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these
criminal petitions, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:04 .09.2023
Vvr
Note: Issue CC today.
b/o.vvr
