Telangana High Court
Yadati Sunil Yadav vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation Cbi on 3 May, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
I.A.No.1 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3433 OF 2024
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3433 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned senior counsel,
representing Sri T.L.Nayan Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner/A.2, Sri Anil Tenwar, learned Special Public Prosecutor - cum
- Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned
Senior Counsel representing Ms.Tekuru Swetcha, learned counsel
appearing for 2nd respondent.
2. I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/Dr.Suneetha
Narreddy, to implead herself as 2nd respondent in the present Criminal
Petition.
3. Having satisfied with the reasons mentioned therein, and that she
is the daughter of the deceased, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is allowed. Registry is
directed to carry out necessary amendments.
4. The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to grant regular bail to
the petitioner herein/A.2 in S.C.No.1 of 2023 pending on the file of
Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The offences alleged
against him are punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 302
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').
5. The allegations leveled against the petitioner herein/A.2 in the
charge sheet dated 26.10.2021, first supplementary charge sheet dated
31.01.2022 and also second supplementary charge sheet dated 28.06.2023
are that he was associated with deceased for the last nearly one and half
years. He convinced the deceased by assuring him of huge money
through a fake story of sale of some diamonds/precious stones in his
possession. The Deceased facilitated the petitioner herein by providing
him an Innova car and other facilities.
6. In 161 Cr.P.C. statement of A.4, he confessed the commission of
murder of the Deceased and also the involvement of petitioner/A.2 and
other accused in the said murder. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy
for committing murder of the deceased, A.1 got convinced A.2 to
participate in their plan. He was associated with the deceased for some
time before the incident. He was an ambitious person and used to
introduce himself as the P.A. of the deceased. He had obtained money
from several persons using the name of the deceased and he tried to cheat
the deceased. A.2 was not happy with the attitude of deceased and his
son-in-law Sri N.Rajasekhar Reddy, with regard to story of sale of
diamond/precious stones and therefore, he got annoyed with the deceased
on being scolded by his mother Mrs. Savitri who was suspecting that
deceased had a bad eye on her. A.1 offered share to A.2 in the promised
amount of 40 Crores to commit the offence. To execute the plan of
murder of the deceased, A.4 (Approver) received an amount of one crore
in cash from A.2 as an advance. However, out of the said amount of one
crore, A.2 kept Rs.25 lakh with himself with a promise to give the same
to A.4 after some time. On enquiry by A.4, A.2 informed that A.5 paid
the said money. He took A.4 to the house of A.1 to confirm the said facts.
7. The petitioner/A.2 including A.3 killed the dog 'Jimmy', living
at the house of the deceased by running over it in 'Honda Amaze' car
used by A.3. The said fact was stated by watchman and housemaid etc.
Petitioner/A.2 and others have also conducted a recce to enter the house
of the deceased. As per forensic expert opinion on google takeout record
from mail ID of the petitioner/A.2 revealed the location of his mobile
phone was just outside the house of A.7 and A.8 at 00.08 hours in the
intervening night of 13/14.03.2019. A.2 requested A.4 to arrange an axe
and accordingly A.4 purchased an axe from Kadiri. During campaign,
A.1 made two calls from his phone number to A.2 at 18.22.14 hours on
14.03.2019. A.2 also enquired from A.4 as to what time he would be
reaching Pulivendula. A.4 reached Pulivendula at around 20.30 hours
from Kadiri and met A.2. A.2 also visited the place of residence of A.7
and A.8 besides visiting other places of relevance in the commission of
the offence. The same was also revealed from the Forensic expert opinion
of CFSL dated 22.11.2022 based on the data extracted from the google
takeout of A.2.
8. A.2 was in frequent contact with A.1, A.3, A.4 over mobile and
exchanged messages. In the evening of 14.03.2019, A.3 and A.4 stayed at
a place near house of the deceased and were waiting for his arrival. A.2
brought liquor from one Gorla Bharath Yadav which they consumed
during the period in between around 9.00 P.M. on 14.03.2019 to 01.30
A.M. on 15.03.2019. A.3 also joined them. A.2 was found available at the
place of drinking as per forensic expert opinion of CFSL, New Delhi. He
has sent SMS to A.3. He has also visited the house of A.7 and A.8. A.2,
A.3 and A.4 reached rear side road of the deceased on the bike of A.3 at
around 1.30 A.M. on 15.03.2019 while A.1 was inside the house of the
deceased. They have entered the compound wall of the deceased after
scaling the boundary wall. A.1 opened the side door and facilitated the
entry of A.2, A.3 and A.4 inside the house.
9. During verbal exchange among them, A.2 abused and kicked the
deceased due to which he fell down. A.3 asked A.4 to bring the axe. A.4
handed over the axe to A.3 who hit on the forehead of the deceased by the
axe. A.2 hit 7 to 8 times on the chest of the deceased after abusing him.
Thereafter, all four of them tortured the deceased and forced him to write
a false note mentioning that his driver Prasad has beaten him badly and
he should not be spared. All of them lifted the deceased, took him into the
bathroom in order to kill him where A.3 again hit on the head of the
deceased with axe 7 to 8 times in order to ensure his death. Thus, all of
them including petitioner/A.2 have committed murder of the deceased.
10. It is further stated that petitioner/A.2 and A.1, A.3 and A.4
have searched for some documents, tried to break open the almirah. After
committing the murder of the deceased, A.2, A.3 and A.4 came out of the
house and escaped by scaling the back side compound wall. A.2 had
thrown the weapon used in the commission of offence i.e. axe in a Nala
near Vasavi Kalyanmantapam, Pulivendula. However, despite making
efforts, the same was not traced out.
11. There is also an allegation that the petitioner herein/A.2 has
played a role in destruction of evidence. The petitioner/A.2 absconded but
he was arrested in Goa. Thus, according to CBI, the petitioner/A.2 has
played active role before, during and after commission of offence and
also for destruction of scene of offence.
12. This is 6th bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier three
bail applications filed by the petitioner/A.2 were dismissed by High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, two bail applications were dismissed by
this Court vide orders dated 27.02.2023 in Crl.P.No.1259 of 2023 and
15.09.2023 in Crl.P.No.7937 of 2023. There is no dispute that the
petitioner can file second bail application or successive bail applications,
but he has to establish that there is a change of circumstances, much less
substantial change of circumstances.
13. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddikota Subba
Rao 1 Apex Court held that once application for bail was dismissed, there
is no question of granting a similar relief which will virtually overruling
the earlier decision without there being a change in a fact situation.
Change means a substantial change which has direct impact on the earlier
decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no
consequence.
1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 605
14. In State of UP through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi 2, Apex
Court reiterated the principle laid down by it in Kalyan Chandrasekhar
Vs. Rajesh Ranjan3 and paragraph No.19 of the said Judgment is
extracted below which is as follows:-
This Court also in specific terms held that:
"the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for
granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned
order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of
incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of
trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the
accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of
offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In
such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has
undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by
itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the
fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either
by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient
for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence
alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the
witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."
15. In Virupaksha Gowda and another Vs. State of Karnataka
and another4 Apex Court held that filing of charge sheet does not in any
manner lesser the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary,
filing of charge sheet establishes that after due investigation the
investigating agency, having found material, has placed the charge sheet
2005 (8) SCC 21
(2004) 7 SCC 528
(2017) 5 SCC 406
for the trial of the accused persons. Therefore, filing of charge sheet is not
a ground for granting bail to an accused.
16. It is apt to note that in the aforesaid charge sheets, CBI
specifically stated that the investigation conducted by Investigating
Officer, obtaining of forensic analysis from 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.
17. In the light of the aforesaid principle, the petitioner herein/A.2
has to establish the change of circumstances from 15.09.2023 till this day.
18. Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned Senior counsel seeks bail to
the petitioner herein/A.2 on the grounds that the petitioner herein/A.2 is
in jail from 03.08.2021. He was taken to custody by CBI from 06.08.2021
to 16.08.2021. Even before that, about 50 days, he was in the custody of
the CBI. Notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. was issued to him on
05.03.2021. He has assisted the CBI more particularly the Investigating
Officer. He was taken to custody thrice. Even then, the Investigating
Officer in the subject crime has issued a paper publication. Except the
google take out, there is no other evidence against the petitioner herein.
With regard to the google take out, the statement of P.W.6 is
contradictory. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to A.8 vide order
dated 31.05.2023 in Crl.P.No.3798 of 2023. This Court has also granted
bail to A.5 vide order dated 11.03.2024 in Crl.P.No.11606 of 2023. The
alleged axe was not recovered. In the counter filed by CBI in
W.P.No.14257 of 2021, the CBI admitted that the petitioner herein/A.2
has cooperated with the Investigating Officer. There are 329 witnesses in
the present case and it is at the stage of 207 Cr.P.C. Except, the google
take out and statement of A.4, there is no other evidence against the
petitioner herein. Keeping the petitioner in jail for a long period from
03.08.2021 is nothing but pre-trial conviction. The only apprehension of
the CBI is that the petitioner herein/A.2 may threaten the witnesses and
interfere with the investigation. He further contends that the petitioner is
entitled for bail in parity with A.5. He has also placed reliance on the
following judgments;-
1. Gudikanti Narsimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh5
2. P.Chidambaram vs. CBI 6
3. Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal vs. State of T.N. 7
AIR 1978 SC 429
(2020) 13 SCC 337
4. Union of India vs. K.A.Najeeb 8
5. Mahendra Lal Das vs. State of Bihar9
6. Shaheen Welfare Association vs. Union of India 10
7. Mohd. Hussain @ Zulfikar Ali vs. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi) 11
8. Surrender Singh @ Shingara Singh 12
9. Motilal Saraf vs. State of J&K13, to contend that the petitioners
case does not fall into triple test i.e. 1) fleeing 2) tampering with
the evidence and 3) influencing the witnesses.
With the said submissions, he sought bail to the petitioner.
19. Whereas, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri
B.Nalin Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for 2nd respondent
opposed the bail application on the following grounds:-
i. There are specific and serious allegations against the
petitioner herein.
ii. This is 6th bail application.
(2005) 2 SCC 13
2021 AIR SC 712
(2002) 1 SCC 149
(1996) 2 SCC 616
(2012) 2 SCC 584
(2005) 7 SCC 387
(2006) 10 SCC 560
iii. There is no change of circumstances much less substantial
change of circumstances from dismissal of the earlier bail
application from 15.09.2023 till today.
iv. Apart from the google take out, there is other evidence i.e.
evidence of Ranganna.
v. He cannot claim parity with A.5.
vi. The anticipatory bail granted to A.8 and regular bail granted
to A.5 were under challenge by 2nd respondent before the
Apex Court and the same are pending.
vii. This Court considered several aspects and dismissed the
earlier bail applications.
viii. There is direct evidence against the petitioner herein.
Therefore, there is every possibility of the petitioner
threatening the witnesses and interfering with the fair trial in
which event, the trial Court may not be in a position to
conduct fair trial in the subject Sessions Case.
With the said submissions, both of them sought to dismiss the present bail
application.
20. It is not in dispute that this is 6th bail application filed by the
petitioner herein. He has to make out change of circumstances much less
substantial change of circumstances. The circumstances relied upon by
the petitioner herein are that this Court granted anticipatory bail to A.8
and regular bail to A.5. Vide order dated 31.05.2023 in Crl.P.No.3798 of
2023, this Court granted anticipatory bail to A.8 i.e. much prior to
dismissal of 5th bail application filed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, it
is not a ground to the petitioner to seek bail on the ground of parity.
However, the said order is under challenge by 2nd respondent before
Hon'ble Apex Court and the said SLP is pending. Vide order dated
16.03.2024 in Crl.P.No.11606 of 2023, this Court granted regular bail to
A.5 on the ground that there is no direct evidence against him, his name
was shown as A.5 in 2nd supplementary charge sheet. and there is only
circumstantial evidence. This Court also considered health ground of A.5.
Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot seek parity with A.5.
21. The name of the petitioner is mentioned in the charge sheet
filed by CBI dated 26.10.2021. The role played by the petitioner is
specifically mentioned in the said charge sheet. According to the CBI, the
petitioner herein has played specific role before, during and post
commission of offence, commission of offence and post-commission of
offence. The Investigating Officer has obtained expert opinion of CFSL,
New Delhi and recovered call data. He has also recorded the statement of
witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer has also
specifically stated about motive for commission of offence in the charge
sheet. P.W.14-Ranganna deposed about the role played by the
petitioner/A.2.
22. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
except google take out and the statement of A.4, there is no other
evidence against the petitioner herein, cannot be considered. Prima facie,
there is direct evidence against the petitioner herein. Therefore, he cannot
claim parity with A.5.
23. In the charge sheet, it is also stated that the petitioner herein
was associate of the deceased. There was dispute between the petitioner
and deceased with regard to sale of some diamonds and precious stones
in his possession. The petitioner bore grudge on the deceased suspecting
that the petitioner had an eye on his mother. He has received money. His
presence in the house of A.7 and A.8 and deceased was specifically
mentioned in the charge sheet. He along with other accused killed the dog
living in the house of the deceased. The petitioner/A.2 hit the deceased on
his chest 7 to 8 times. He has collected axe from A.4.
24. Perusal of the charge sheet also would reveal that there are
specific allegations and overt acts against the petitioner herein. Prima
facie, he has actively participated in commission of offence and tried to
screen the evidence. Thus, according to the prosecution, the petitioner
herein has played active role before, during and post-commission of
offence. The reliability of statement of A.4 recorded under Sections 161,
164, 306 of IPC and other statements cannot be considered in the present
petition filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail. It is for the trial Court
to consider the same. Considering the said aspects including the aspect
that most of the witnesses are from the State of Andhra Pradesh, A.8 is
sitting Member of Kadapa Parliamentary Constituency. A.7 is his father
and close relative of the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh,
transferred the present Sessions Case from CBI Court, Kadapa to CBI
Court, Hyderabad.
25. The reliability of the witnesses cannot be considered while
deciding bail application. It is for the trial Court to decide the same. Two
witnesses died in suspicious circumstances.
26. P.W.9 Sri J.Shankaraiah, the then Circle Inspector of Police
also stated about the role played by the petitioner and other accused in
commission of offence. His statement was recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. He also refused to give statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
He was placed under suspension and the same was revoked later. He has
addressed a letter to Superintendent of Police, stating that the CBI
pressurized him to turn as approver. Though he agreed to give statement
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, refused to give the same.
On consideration of all the said aspects only, this Court dismissed earlier
bail application filed by the petitioner vide Crl.P.No.7937 of 2023 order
dated 15.09.2023 to today.
27. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana (Koli)14, The Apex Court held that while granting bail the
Court must focus upon role of the accused. Merely observing that another
accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not
sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of
parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role
attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the
victims is of utmost importance.
28. As held by the Apex Court in Amaramani Tripathi (supra),
the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the
unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to
enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands
charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death
(2021) 6 SCC 230
penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has
undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by
itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact
that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself
or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for
enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is
severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the
accused during the period he was on bail.
29. It is relevant to note that Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. deals with
maximum period for which an Under Trial Prisoner can be detained and
it says where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or
trial under this Code an offence under law (not being an offence for
which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the
punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period of
extending up to one-half of the maximum period of punishment specified
for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his
personal bond with or without security.
30. As discussed supra, all the witnesses in the present case are
from the State of Andhra Pradesh. As rightly contended by learned
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that A.4 has already filed an
application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to A.8 on the
ground that A.8, A.5 and others sent Dr.Chaitanya Reddy, son of A.5 to
Central Jail, Kadapa where A.4 was there at that particular point of time,
offered Rs.2 Crores and threatened him. They have also tried to kill father
of A.4.
31. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, 2nd respondent has
already filed SLPs challenging the anticipatory bail granted toA.8 and
regular bail granted to A.5 and they are pending. Therefore, the petitioner
herein cannot seek parity with A.5.
32. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, viewed from any angle,
the petitioner herein/A.2 is not entitled for bail and this application is
liable to be dismissed.
33. In view of the above discussion, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is allowed.
However, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
criminal petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:03.05.2024
vvr
