Telangana High Court

Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 May, 2024

Author: K.Lakshman

Bench: K.Lakshman

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

        CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3044 AND 3046 OF 2024

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, learned counsel for the petitioner in

Crl.P.No.3044 of 2024, Sri Ch.Siddardha Sarma, learned counsel for the

petitioner in Crl.P.No.3046 of 2024, Sri Anilkumar Tenwar, learned

Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri B.Nalin Kunar, learned Senior

counsel representing Ms.Tekuru Swetcha, learned counsel appearing for

2nd respondent.

3. The petitioner herein are A.6 and A.7 and the offences alleged

against them are under Sections 120-B read with Sections 302 and 201 of

IPC. The allegations leveled against them are that A.6 is 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 act 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

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.

4. The allegation against A.7 is that he conspired with other

accused in committing murder of the Deceased and also screening of

evidence. He is the father of A.8, sitting Member of Kadapa

Parliamentary Constituency. He is a close relative of the present Chief

Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

5. Vide common order dated 04.09.2023 in Crl.P.Nos. 7545 and

7565 of 2023, this Court dismissed the bail applications filed by the

petitioners herein/A.6 and A.7. Vide order dated 11.03.2024 in

Crl.P.No.11606 of 2023, this Court granted bail to A.5 on imposition of

certain conditions. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are also

standing on the same footing and to maintain parity, they are also entitled

to be enlarged on bail.

6. Vide 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 order 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 CrPC and the CBI submitted an application to record his statement under Section 164 CrPC, 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 pressurized by the CBI. That thereafter he died under suspicious circumstances.

13 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that apprehension on the part of the petitioners being daughter and 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 company 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 tune, 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 CBI Special Court at Hyderabad.

7. Therefore, it is apt to note that in the order dated 04.09.2023,

Crl.P.Nos.7545 and 7565 of 2023 filed by the petitioners herein, this

Court held that prima facie, there are serious allegations against both the

petitioners. A.7 is father of A.8 and is close relative of present Chief

Minister of Andhra Pradesh State. Most of the witnesses are from the

State of Andhra Pradesh. A.8 is sitting Member of Parliament from

Kadapa Loksabha Constituency,

8. A.6 has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against

the Investigating Officer Mr. Ram Singh. The learned Magistrate referred

the said complaint to the Police 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.

to quash the proceedings in the said crime vide Crl.P.No.1258 of 2022

and vide order dated 23.02.2022 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Amaravati granted stay of all further proceedings arising out of the said

FIR.

9. It is also relevant to note that prima facie, there are specific

allegations against the petitioners herein and other accused. P.W.9, 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 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

CBI pressurized him to turn as an approver. P.Ws.2 and 3 gave a

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, got it

executed through some new persons. Though he agreed to give statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C, subsequently he refused to give the said

statement.

10. It is also apt to note that two witnesses died in suspicious

circumstances.

11. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel contended that

except statement of A.4 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is

nothing against the petitioners herein. The said statement of A.4 recorded

under Section 161 and 164 and 306 of Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon. He

is a hide assassinate.

12. The order of pardon to A.4 was challenged by A.1 and A.3 in

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 1 and also four grounds

enumerated therein 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. Thereafter, the ground of

pardon to the Approver i.e. Shaik Dasthagiri (A.4) attained finality.

13. It is settled principle that it is not necessary for the Court to

assign elaborate reasons regarding the prosecution case while granting or

rejecting bail. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in

Rohit Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan 2. While considering bail

application, analyzing the statements of prosecution witnesses is

2001 CrlLJ 1905

2023 (2) LS 109 SC

impermissible. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in

Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary 3

14. A.4 turned as approver. A.1 to A.3, the petitioners herein/A.6

and A.7 are in jail. This Court granted bail to A.5 and anticipatory bail to

A.8. The same are under Challenge before the Apex Court vide SLP

(Crl.) No.3448 of 2024 and SLP (Crl.)No.4448 of 2024 respectively. The

same are pending. Default bail granted to A.1 was cancelled by this Court

considering the statement made by the CBI that A.1 is interfering with the

investigation.

15. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are serious allegations

against both the petitioners/A.6 and A.7.

16. A.8, father of A.7, is a 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. Conducting fair trial is

integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2023 SCC OnLine SC 551 = (2023) 6 SCC 123

17. As discussed supra, this Court granted anticipatory bail to A.8.

A.4 filed a petition vide Crl.P.No.2960 of 2023 seeking cancellation of

the said anticipatory bail granted to A.8 and it is pending. 2nd respondent

has challenged the said order before the Apex Court and the same is

pending. Considering the said aspects vide order dated 04.09.2023, this

Court dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners herein/A.6 and

A.7.

18. With regard to parity, it is relevant to note that this Court vide

order dated 11.03.2024 granted bail to A.5 considering the fact that A.5 is

in jail from 17.11.2021. He has been suffering from severe cervical

spondylitis and recently underwent surgeries twice to his left shoulder

displacement. He has severe loss of appetite and lost 10 kilos of weight

since the date of remand and collapsed in the prison premises on

17.02.2023. He is under continuous treatment. He has been put on

medication without disclosing diagnosis. He has filed medical reports in

proof of the same. On consideration of the said aspects, more particularly

health condition, this Court granted bail to A.5 on imposition of certain

conditions. Therefore, A.6 cannot seek parity. Moreover, there are

specific allegations against him. He has applied leave and he was part of

conspiracy in committing murder of the Deceased and destruction of

evidence.

19. The petitioner/A.7 has also filed medical note dated 18.09.2023

issued by Deputy Surgeon, Medical Officer, Central Prison, Hyderabad.

The trial Court has granted interim bail to him 5 times on medical

grounds. In the said medical note, there is specific mention that his health

condition is unstable. In the discharge summary, dated 02.11.2023, it is

stated that in case of bleeding/severe pain at the puncture site, severe

breathlessness, giddiness, chest pain, rapid palpitations, any loss of

consciousness, severe acidity with abdominal pain, black coloured stools,

loss of speech, severe weakness in any limb, immediately report to the

doctor within thirty minutes of symptoms.

20. Referring to the same, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior

counsel for the petitioners, would submit that A.7 is also suffering from

mental illness and his health condition is unstable. He is entitled for

parity with A.5. He seeks enlargement of bail to A.7. But learned Special

Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned senior counsel

appearing for 2nd respondent contended that that vide order dated

04.09.2023, this Court dismissed the bail applications of A.6 and A.7.

A.7 surrendered before the Superintendent of Jail on completion of

interim bail period granted to him on 01.12.2023. Prior to 04.09.2023 and

after 01.12.2023, there is no complaint of health of the petitioner

herein/A.7. Therefore, the said medical record was created for the

purpose of the present bail application. Hence, he cannot seek parity with

A.5.

21. It is apt to note that A.7 underwent cataract surgery in the right

eye. Considering the same, CBI Court granted him escort bail. The same

was extended. He is suffering with obstructive sleep apnea, he was

advised to be on CPAP after a week. He was later advised to undergo

pulmonary vein isolation by cryo ablation for his artrial fibrillation.

Considering the same and also the report of the Medical Director, AIG

hospital, Hyderabad, trial Court granted/extended escort bail to him. It is

also relevant to note that, the CBI Court had constituted a Medical Board

consisting of two Doctors appointed by the Director, Directorate of

Medical Education, to examine the health condition of A.7, to report on

the same and also the follow-up treatment required to him after eryo

ablation procedure. Considering the same, CBI Court granted escort bail

to A.7 and the same was extended.

22. He is now 72 years old and suffering with the old age health

ailments. In support of the same, he has filed medical reports issued by

AIG Hospital, Hyderabad. In the discharge summary, dated 02.11.2023

of the said hospital, it is mentioned that in case of bleeding/severe

breathlessness, giddiness, chest pain, rapid palpitations, any loss of

consciousness, severe acidity with abdominal pain, black colored stools,

loss of speech, severe weakness in any limbs, immediately report to the

doctor within 30 minutes of symptoms.

23. The contentions of both learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI

and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned senior counsel representing 2nd

respondent that the A.7 has created the said medical reports to file the

present application seeking bail is without any basis. As discussed supra,

learned CBI Court has constituted Medical Board consisting of two

doctors appointed by Director, Directorate of Medical Education.

24. As discussed supra, A.5 was in jail from 17.11.2021 and he

underwent shoulder replacement surgery twice, he collapsed in the jail

twice. Considering the same, this Court granted bail to him. Therefore,

A.6 cannot seek parity. He is in jail from 16.04.2023. Prima facie, there

are serious allegations against him. The role played by him in

commission of offence is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet.

Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

25. A.7 is in jail from 22.04.2023. He is also suffering from various

old age ailments and therefore he can claim parity. He is entitled for bail.

26, With regard to contention of Sri T .Niranjan Reddy, learned

senior counsel that, except statement of A.4, google take out relied upon

by the CBI is not supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the

Indian Evidence Act, the same cannot be considered while deciding bail

application. It is for the trial Court to consider the said aspect.

27. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, it is relevant to

note that anticipatory bail granted by this Court to A.8 is under challenge

before the Apex Court and it is pending. Regular bail granted to A.5 by

this Court is also under challenge before the Apex Court and it is also

pending. Crl.P.No.3575 of 2023 filed by A.1 and A.3 challenging the

pardon granted to A.4 is also pending before this Court.

28. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance

on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Lt. Col Prasad

Shrikant Purohit vs The State Of Maharashtra 4, Babu Singh vs.

State of U.P. 5 would contend that second bail application for bail when

first bail application was dismissed is maintainable. There is no dispute

that second bail application is maintainable and the accused has to satisfy

(2018) 11 SCC 458

(1978) 1 SCC 579

this Court that there is change of circumstances much less substantial

change of circumstances. In the present case, A.6 failed to establish that

there is change of circumstances much less substantial change of

circumstances. A.7 underwent surgery, suffering with the aforesaid health

issues. He has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in

Kamaljit Singh v State of Punjab 6 Avtar Singh v State of Punjab, 7

Vikram Singh v CBI, 8 Abhishek Tripathi v State of Uttar Pradesh, 9

and Ramesh Bhavan Rathore v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana 10.

29. Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on

the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Neeru Yadav vs. Stated of

U.P. 11 wherein the Apex Court considered that the concept of liberty and

its curtailment by law. Apex Court held that it is an established fact that a

crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not

retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences,

accentuates and causes harm to the society. The victim may be an

individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the

victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order

(2005) 7 SCC 226

(2010) 15 SCC 529

(2020) 12 SCC 660

(2020) 18 SCC 441

(2021) 6 SCC 230

(2016) 15 SCC 422

situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the

peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is

definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He

cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective.

30. In the light of the same, the allegation leveled against A.7 is

that he has conspired with the other accused, committed murder of the

Deceased and screened the evidence. His name was mentioned in the

second supplementary charge sheet. The matter is at pre-trial stage. The

prosecution has to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. The

apprehension of CBI and 2nd respondent is that he may threaten the

witnesses and interfere with fair trial. If he does so, they can file

applications seeking cancellation of bail. He is suffering with various

health issues.

31. Learned Special Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the

judgment of Apex Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State ( NCT) 12 and

would contend that both the petitioners/A.6 and A.7 are in jail from one

year is not a ground to grant bail to them. The said aspect was also held in

Gobarbhai Narabhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat 13. Therefore,

granting of interim bail five times to A.7 by CBI Court is also not a

(2018) 12 SCC 129

(2008) 3 SCC 775

ground to consider bail application to grant bail to A.7. But in the present

case, A.7 is suffering with various health issues which is evident from the

medical reports issued by AIG hospital, Hyderabad.

32. As discussed supra, A.6 is not entitled for bail and the criminal

petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed.

33. As discussed supra, all the witnesses in the present case are

from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The apprehension of the CBI as well

as 2nd respondent is that A.7 may threaten witnesses and interfere with the

fair trial. He is father of A.8 who is sitting Member of Kadapa

Parliamentary Constituency and close relative of present Chief Minister

of Andhra Pradesh.

34. The Crl.P.No.3046 of 2024 filed by A.6 is dismissed. However,

Crl.P.No.3044 of 2024 filed by the petitioner/A.7 is allowed granting bail

to him on the following conditions:-

i. The petitioner herein/A.7 is directed to be released on bail on his

executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two

lakhs only) with two sureties for likesum each to the satisfaction of

the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.