Telangana High Court

Gajjala Uma Sankar Reddy vs The State on 18 November, 2024

Author: K.Lakshman

Bench: K.Lakshman

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.10802 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel representing

Sri. C.Dharma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.3,

Sri Anil Tenwar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri

S. Goutham, learned counsel for 2nd respondent.

2. The Criminal Petition is filed under Sections - 437 and 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') by

petitioner herein /A.3 in S.C.No.1 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad to grant regular bail. The

offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 302 and 120-

B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').

3. This is 1st bail application filed by the petitioner before this

Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed three bail applications before trial Court

before transfer of trial to the Principal Special Judge, CBI Cases,

Hyderabad from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. He has

filed one bail application in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Amaravati. The bail application filed by the petitioner vide

Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2024 in S.C.No.1 of 2023 was dismissed by the trial

Court vide order dated 06.08.2024.

4. As per the charge sheet filed by CBI, the allegations leveled

against the petitioner herein are that the deceased Y.S.Vivekananda

Reddy, former Member of Legislative Assembly of erstwhile combined

State of Andhra Pradesh and also former Member of Parliament, 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 ex-Chief

Minister of Andhra Pradesh i.e. Mr.Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy.

5. According to the prosecution, on 14/15.03.2019 in the morning

hours, the deceased was brutally murdered and his body was found lying

in a pool of blood in the bathroom attached to his bedroom. Plenty of

blood was also found present in the bedroom. On the complaint lodged

by Sri M.V.Krishna Reddy, Personal Assistant of the deceased, Police

Pulivendula registered a case in Cr.No.84 of 2019 under Section 174 of

Cr.P.C. After inquest, the provision of law was altered to Section 302 of

IPC.

6. Vide order dated 11.03.2020, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

at Amaravati, in W.P.No.3944 of 2019 and 1639 of 2020, entrusted the

investigation to CBI to investigate into the allegations of larger

conspiracy and destruction of evidence and also directed the CBI, to

complete investigation as expeditiously as possible and file final report.

7. In compliance with the said order, CBI registered a case bearing

RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi on 09.07.2020 on after

completion of investigation, laid charge sheet dated 26.10.2021 against

A.1, A.2, the petitioner (A.3) and A.4, thereafter, they filed first

supplementary charge sheet on 31.01.2022 and second supplementary

charge sheet on 28.06.2023.

8. The allegations leveled against the petitioner herein/A.3 are that

the petitioner had personal grudge/motive behind participation in

conspiracy in execution of murder of the deceased. His brother namely

Gajjala Jagadeeshwar Reddy, helped in campaigning of the deceased in

MLC election, 2017 and he also used to maintain party fund of the

deceased for day-to-day expenses. Deceased was also having one benami

property of about Ac.16.00 guntas of agricultural land in name of his

brother whose statement was recorded as P.W.36. Despite assistance

rendered to the deceased in helping his political and personal affairs,

petitioner suspected that the deceased was not giving any political space

to the petitioner and his family members in the village sarpanch elections

even on repeated requests.

9. According to the CBI, during investigation, it was further

revealed that monetary consideration was the main motive behind

participation in conspiracy of murder. The petitioner along with other co-

accused promised to receive proportional share out of Rs. 40 Crores

likely to be received from A.5 and others in lieu of execution of murder

of the deceased. Out of the promised amount, Rs. 1 Crore each was given

in advance to the petitioner along with other accused persons. A.4 turned

as approver who disclosed that he had kept the received amount with his

associate Syed Munna S/o Ismail. During investigation, an unexplained

sum of Rs. 46,70,000/- was recovered and seized from the locker of Syed

Munna.

10. It is further alleged that the statement under Section 161 of

CrPC of Sri B. Ranganna (L.W.61), watchman of the deceased, was

recorded and subsequently under Section 164 of CrPC before the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamalamudugu, Kadapa District was

recorded. He identified the petitioner during Test Identification Parade

(TIP) conducted at Central Prison, Kadapa by the learned Magistrate. He

also identified all four accused including the petitioner herein. He further

stated that he saw the petitioner and three others in the house of the

deceased and also saw them leaving the house of the deceased on the

night of the incident. Thereafter, he went inside the bedroom and then

bathroom wherein he found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood.

After committing murder, the petitioner and other three accused jumped

the walls at the back side of the house and reached the place where the

motorcycle was parked. All of them reached the residence of A.1 on

15.03.2019 at 05:30 AM, where A.1 assured them not to worry about

police. He also assured them that he had cleaned up the scene of crime

which he eventually did by going to the house of the deceased in the

morning on 15.03.2019. The petitioner and three others dispersed in

different directions.

11. It is further alleged that the petitioner was seen running on the

road at around 3.15 AM through CCTV footage installed at Bridgestone

shop near house of the deceased. The same was revealed from FSL

report. The petitioner was also identified in CCTV footage by

independent persons familiar with the petitioner since childhood. At

around ten days after preparing the plan, the petitioner and A.2 killed the

dog that lived in the house of the deceased by running over it by the

Honda Amaze Car No. AP04 BF 8982 used by the petitioner. During the

course of investigation, confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.

P.C. of A.4 was recorded wherein he stated that entire facts of the case

including the role played by the petitioner in the commission of offences.

Vide order dated 26.11.2021, tender of pardon under Section 306 of

CrPC was granted to A.4.

12. During the course of investigation, A.4 disclosed that around

10.02.2019, A.2 took him and the petitioner to the house of A.1 who

informed that the deceased had not given him share out of the money

received from Bangalore land settlement. A.1 told them to do away with

the deceased and they all planned to kill the deceased including the dog

which kept roaming near the house of deceased as it could be a hindrance

to the execution of plan. A.4 in his statement also stated that the

petitioner dropped A.1 near the house of the deceased on his motor cycle.

Thereafter, the petitioner came and joined with them in drinking until

1.30 hours. The petitioner, A.2, A.4 who came behind the house of the

deceased on bike and parked it there. Therefore, all of them jumped the

boundary wall of the compound into empty plot and subsequently jumped

into main compound. A.4 noticed Sri B.Ranganna sleeping. They

knocked the side door. A.1 opened the door and let them inside. The

deceased saw them and enquired about them. Thereafter, the deceased

went into the bed room in the hall area and then, the petitioner informed

the deceased that he has not done anything for them. The deceased made

argument with A.1. A.2 abused and punched the deceased who fell down.

The petitioner herein asked A.4 to bring the axe and hit the deceased on

forehead with the axe. When the deceased turned over, the petitioner

herein hit on his head again with the axe. Blood started coming out of

head of the deceased. A.2 hit 7 to 8 times on chest of the deceased with

all his might. The petitioner herein handed over the axe to A.4 and told

him to make sure that he does not get up. Then, the petitioner, A.1 and

A.2 searched for the documents all over the house, then the deceased

started shouting. Thereafter, A.4 hit him on the right palm with axe. The

petitioner and other accused found some documents.

13. The petitioner and other accused forced the deceased to write a

letter stating that one Prasad Driver killed him and do not leave him and

also forced to sign below the letter. Thereafter, they kept the deceased in

the bathroom and the petitioner again hit the deceased on his head with

axe 5 to 6 times to make sure that the deceased was dead. Therefore,

according to the CBI, the petitioner participated in the commission of

offences alleged against him. He was also part of the conspiracy.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

petitioner was arrested on 09.09.2021 and since then he is in jail.

Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Sri B.Ranganna,

watchman, as eye witness on 21.07.2020 where he identified only three

persons i.e. A.1, A.2 and A.4 and he described the other person as tall and

thin. Even then, CBI has not arrested A.4. In his statement under Section

164 of CrPC, he confessed the commission of murder and explained the

role of each accused. CBI facilitated A.4 in getting anticipatory bail by

reporting 'no objection' to his petition seeking anticipatory bail. L.W.1

did not reveal the name of the petitioner at the time of recording his

statement on 21.06.2021 and also statement recorded under Section 164

CrPC after lapse of 28 months of the incident. As per the investigation,

the petitioner alone ran towards Kadapa road in front of Bridgestone

shop. As per the confession of A.2 and as per the seizure, on 08.08.2021

at 22.10 hours, A.2 and the petitioner while escaping on motor cycle from

the house of the deceased after committing murder, they used the same

motor cycle to hid the blood stained axe after wrapping it in an old nighty

cloth available in the side bag of the Pulsor Motor Cycle and both have

preceded in a bike, reached near Nala (drainage) and threw away the said

blood stained axe in Nala (drainage). After that, both went to the house of

the petitioner. Thus, there are contradictory versions which would falsify

the contention of the prosecution.

15. The Investigating Officer examined A.4 for the first time under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 25.08.2021, and under Section 164 Cr.P.C on

31.08.2021 and in his statement under Section 306 of Cr.P.C, he

categorically stated that CBI called him to appear before them at Delhi on

03.03.2020 and he had been with them for 2 ½ months for investigation

purpose. After returning from Delhi, the CBI started investigation and

examined him under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by recording his statement,

A.4 is not a credible witness and he is henchman of prosecution, he has

planted other accused. There are contradictions in the confessional

statement of A.4. This Court granted anticipatory bail to A.8, regular

bails to A.2, A.5, A.6 and A.7. The petitioner herein is also standing on

the same footing of A.2. He was arrested on 09.09.2021. Therefore, he is

also entitled for regular bail to maintain parity. There are 294 witnesses

and more than ten thousand documents. Therefore, there is no likelihood

of commencement of trial in S.C.No.1 of 2023..

16. Whereas, Sri Anil Tenwar, learned Special Public Prosecutor

and Sri S.Gowtham, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent would

contend that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. His role

was there in commission of the murder of the deceased. He assaulted the

deceased with axe 7 to 8 times. There is also motive. He received

consideration. L.W.1 eye witness spoke the role of the petitioner/A.3. He

was found in CCTV footage. The Investigating Officer obtained scientific

evidence, to prove the same. The offences committed by the petitioner

along with the other accused are serious and heinous in nature. He is

having both money, man power and close contact with the other accused

who were also influential persons. If he is released on bail, there is every

possibility of interfering with the trial by threatening the witnesses in

which event it is not possible for the trial Court to conduct fair trial. Both

of them placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in

the following:-

1. Aminuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1

2. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan 2

3. Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar 3

4. Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala 4

5. Masroor v. State of U.P. 5

6. Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh 6

(2021) 17 SCC276

(MANU/SC/0045/2005)

(MANU/SC/1274/2021)

(MANU/SC/0669/2008)

(MANU/SC/0683/2009)

(MANU/SC/0203/2002)

With the said submissions, both of them opposed the bail application

filed by the petitioner.

17. As discussed supra, this is the first bail application filed by the

petitioner before this Court and earlier he filed three bail applications

before the trial Court. As discussed supra, according to the CBI, there are

serious and specific allegations against the petitioner/A.3. He actually

participated in the offence physically. He directly hit the deceased with

axe 7 to 8 times, thereafter jumped from the compound wall and left the

house of the deceased. He was shown in CCTV footages.

18. L.W.61 is the eye witness. Perusal of his statement recorded

under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would reveal the names of A.1, A.2 and

A.4. With regard to 4th person, he stated that the 4th person is tall and

thin. He also stated that A.1, A.2 and A.4 used to come to the deceased

house frequently. Except that, nothing was stated against the petitioner in

his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, recorded on 21.07.2021. In his

161 CrPC statement recorded on 17.09.2021, he further stated that he

identified three persons i.e. Shaik Dastagiri (A.4), Yadanti Sunil Yadav

(A.2) and Thumallapalli Gangi Reddy (A.1) and 4th person is tall and lean

and was wearing black colour half shirt. He can identify the tall and lean

person if shown to him. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that there is improvement in the statement of

L.W.1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 21.07.2021 and

17.09.2021.

19. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, L.W.61

stated that he saw four people who were roaming from the hall to

bedroom as if they lost something. He knows three people. i.e. A.1, A.2

and A.4. 4th person is tall and thin. He has not seen him before.

Therefore, he could not recognize him. He was wearing pant and shirt

(half shirt). There are contradictions in the statements of A.4, recorded

under Sections 161, 164 and 306 of CrPC. Though in the charge sheet,

there is specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he along with

A.2 escaped through streets on the Pulsor motor cycle bearing No.AP02

CG 2239. There was no TIP conducted with regard to the identification of

the said vehicle.

20. Thus, according to the prosecution, the statement of L.W.1,

A.4, CCTV footage and also TIP of L.W.61 are relevant with regard to

the role played by the petitioner/A.3.

21. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are contradictions in the

statement of L.W.61 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and Section

164 of Cr.P.C. He has not stated the name of the petitioner/A.3 and he

has stated that 4th person is tall and thin.

22. In the TIP conducted on 25.09.2021, L.W.61 stated that he saw

the petitioner/A.3 went on motor cycle from the premises of the deceased

house. Prima facie, there are contradictions in his statement recorded

under Section 161, 164 of Cr.P.C. and also TIP. However, they are triable

issues which can be considered at the time of trial. Even recovery

memorandum, dated 08.08.2021 would also reveal the said fact. The

prosecution has also placed reliance on the CCTV footage which will be

subject to proof during trial.

23. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are contradictions in the

statement of A.4 recorded under Sections 161, 164 of Cr.P.C. and under

Section 306 of Cr.P.C. They are triable issues and the same will be

considered at the time of trial by the trial court. This Court cannot analyze

the statements of witnesses etc, while deciding bail application. As

discussed supra, the petitioner herein is in jail from 09.09.2021. The

aforesaid S.C.No.1 of 2023 is at the stage of compliance of Section 207

CrPC proceedings. According to the accused, CBI is responsible for the

said delay. According to the prosecution, the accused are delaying the

said compliance of Section 207 of CrPC proceedings. However, the fact

remains that S.C.No.1 of 2023 is at the stage of compliance of Section

207 Cr.P.C. proceedings since last one year four months. There is no

dispute that 294 witnesses are yet to be examined and voluminous

documents are to be perused to be marked.

24. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would contend that

the petitioner herein/A.3 is prime accused and his bail cannot be

considered till recording the statements of 5 crucial witnesses i.e. L.W.9,

31, 61, 110 and 218. Even to record statements of these witnesses,

definitely it would take time considerable time. The petitioner is in jail

from 09.09.2021. According to the CBI, the petitioner committed

offences at the instance of A.7, A.8 who are on regular and anticipatory

bail respectively. 2nd respondent has already filed Special Leave Petition

(SLP) seeking cancellation of bails granted to them and the same are

pending before the Apex Court. The apprehension of the CBI is that the

petitioner may threaten the witnesses and interfere with the trial in which

event, the trial Court will not be in a position to conduct fair trial. If the

petitioner threatens any witnesses including the aforesaid 5 crucial

witnesses i.e. L.Ws. 9, 31, 61, 110 and 218, it is for the CBI/2nd

respondent to file application seeking cancellation of bail to them but on

the said ground, they cannot oppose bail application of the petitioner who

is in jail from 09.09.2021.

25. It is apt to note that in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia 7,

the Hon'ble Apex 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 8, 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.

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:

. (2020) 2 SCC 118

. (2002) 3 SCC 598

(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."

26. It was further held in the said 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 ought to be guided by the

principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.

27. The Apex Court referred to the factors to be borne in mind

while considering an application for bail in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v

Ashis Chatterjee 9, 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..."

28. The Apex Court has also referred to the principles laid down

by it in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan 10, wherein it was held

. (2010) 14 SCC 496

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.

29. By referring to the above said judgments, the Apex Court held

that 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 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

. (2004) 7 SCC 528

afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty bound to

explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.

30. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddikota Subba

Rao 11 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.

31. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai

Makwana (Koli) 12, 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.

1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 605

(2021) 6 SCC 230

32. The Apex Court also considered the application filed for bail in

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra 13 wherein the

accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967. The Apex Court surveyed the entire law right

from the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Gudikanti

Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 14

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Subbia vs. State of Punjab 15, Hussainara

Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 16, Union of India vs.

K.A.Najeeb 17, and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation 18, and observed as follows:-

"If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

33. It is also relevant to note that in Gudikanti Narasimhulu

(supra), it is observed as follows:-

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693

(1978) 1 SCC 240: 1977INSC 232

(1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 INSC 68

(1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1979 INSC 34

(2021) 3 SCC 713: 2021 INSC 50

(2022) 10SCC 51: 2022 INSC 690

10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial Courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240.

We quote:

"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [(R.v Rose-1898 18 Cox]:

"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."

53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in ach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight breach. forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial Courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that 'bail is rule and jail is exception."

34. The Apex Court also considered the principle laid down by it

in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in

judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the

attendance of the prisoner at trial.

35. In the light of the same, coming to the facts of the present case,

petitioner herein is A.3. He was arrested on 09.09.2021. On completion

of investigation, CBI laid charge sheet on 26.10.2021, 1st supplementary

charge sheet on 31.01.2022 and 2nd supplementary charge sheet on

30.06.2023. The same were taken on file as S.C.No.1 of 2023 and the

same is at the stage of compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C, proceedings.

Both CBI, 2nd respondent alleges that the accused are dragging on the

proceedings at the stage of Section 207 Cr.P.C. intentionally. Whereas,

petitioner/A.3 is contending that he never filed any application before the

trial Court seeking compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. proceedings. He

has cooperated with the Investigating Officer while conducting

investigation.

36. It is also apt to note that the wife of the deceased filed a writ

petition vide W.P.No.3944 of 2019 seeking entrustment of investigation

to CBI. The said writ petition was allowed on 11.03.2020 by the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the

proceedings to CBI Court, Hyderabad from CBI court, Kadapa.

37. Admittedly, the proceedings in S.C.No.1 of 2023 are at the

stage of compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, proceedings. A.6 filed an

application seeking compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The

said application is pending. As discussed supra, CBI and the petitioner

are blaming each other for the said delay in compliance of Section 207

Cr.P.C.

38. Admittedly, in the present case, there are 294 witnesses. There

is no likelihood of commencement of trial in near future. Petitioner is in

jail from 09.09.2021. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would

contend that there are 5 crucial witnesses i.e. L.W.9, 31,61, 110 and 218.

Till their evidence is recorded, bail may not be granted to the petitioner

herein, otherwise, there is every possibility of petitioner threatening the

said witnesses and interfering with the trial. But as discussed supra,

S.C.No.1 of 2023 is at the stage of compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.,

There are 294 witnesses to be examined. Therefore, recording the

evidence of L.W.218 will certainly take considerable time.

39. As discussed supra, according to CBI, petitioner committed

offence at the instance of A.7 and A.8 who are on regular and

anticipatory bail respectively. 2nd respondent has already filed Special

Leave Petitions seeking cancellation of the same before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the same are pending. A.2, A.5 and A.6 are on

regular bail. It is brought to the notice of this Court that 2nd respondent

filed Special Leave Petitions for cancellation of said bails and the same

are pending. The only apprehension of the CBI is that petitioner/A.3 may

threaten the witnesses and interfere with trial. If the petitioner threatens

any witnesses including l.W.9, 31, 61, 110 and 218, the CBI or 2nd

respondent can file an application seeking cancellation of bail. On the

said ground, denying the bail to the petitioner who is in incarceration

from 09.09.2021 is not proper.

40. Apex Court In Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India 19 the Apex

Court held:-

"When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution"

2024 INSC 604

41. In Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb 20 the Apex Could while

considering the duration for completion of the trial held:-

"12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the NDPS Act") which too have somewhat rigorous conditions for grant of bail, this Court in Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT ofDelhi) [Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1156], Babba v. State of Maharashtra [Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 118] and Umarmia v. State of Gujarat [Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 114] enlarged the accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.

42. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu

Yadav 21, the Apex Court explained parameters to be taken into

consideration for grant of bail by the courts which are as follows:-

"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

(2021) (3) SCC 713

( 2004) 7 SCC 528

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."

43. In Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 22, the

Apex Court observed that prolonged incarceration before being

pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become

punishment without trial. Apex Court also reiterated the well established

principle that "bail is the rule and refusal is an exception" and also the

fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution

of India is superior to the statutory restrictions. Apex Court also reiterated

the same in Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement 23.

44. In Aminuddin (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent, the trial Court dismissed the bail application of the

(2024) SCC Online SC 1920

2024 INSC 632

accused therein by mentioning the reasons. Whereas, the High Court did

not assign any reasons while granting bail and it only referred about the

larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the

Apex Court held that the High Court has to assign specific reasons while

granting or rejecting bail to the accused and in the said case, the High

Court did not assign any reasons. Therefore, the Apex Court cancelled the

bail granted by the High court to an accused. But the facts of the present

case are slightly different. As discussed supra, the petitioner is in jail

since 09.09.2021, S.C.No.1 of 2023 is at the stage of compliance of

Section 207 of CrPC and 294 witnesses are to be examined and

voluminous documents to be marked.

45. According to the prosecution, L.W.61, A.4, spoke about role

played by the petitioner in commission of the offences and the petitioner

was seen in CCTV footage.

46. As discussed supra, at the costs of repetition, L.W.1 did not

refer the name of the petitioner and he described 4th person as tall and

thin. Prima facie, there are contradictions in his statement recorded under

Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. Even in the TIP, he stated that he saw the

petitioner/A.3 in the house of the deceased and in the premises of the

CBI. However, the said TIP is subject to proof during trial. Therefore, the

facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case.

47. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, relied on the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar,

Brijmani Devi, Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala, Masroor and Ram

Govind Upadhyay (supra) but the facts of the said case are slightly

different to the facts of the present case.

48. In the present case, the petitioner herein is in incarceration for

long period since 09.09.2021. Referring to the principle laid down by the

Apex Court in State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripati 24, learned

Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and learned counsel appearing for 2nd

respondent would contend that long incarceration is not a ground to grant

bail to the accused where the allegations are serious.

49. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are contradictions in the

statement of L.W.1, A.4 and CCTV footage which are subject to proof

during trial. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he has

criminal background and that he did not cooperate with the Investigating

Officer during investigation.

2005 (8) SCC 21

50. The petitioner is a milk vendor. He is in jail from 09.09.2021.

The said aspects were not considered by the trial Court while dismissing

the bail application of the petitioner/A.3.

51. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is inclined to

grant bail to the petitioner/A.3 on imposition of certain condition.

52. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed granting bail to

the petitioner herein/A.3 on the following conditions:-

i. The petitioner herein/A.3 is directed to be released on bail on his

executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees

twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for likesum each to

the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI

Cases, Hyderabad.

ii. Petitioner shall report before the SHO, Pulivendula Police Station,

Kadapa District, weekly once i.e. on every Saturday between 10

A.M. to 5 PM.

iii. Petitioner herein shall not interfere with the trial in S.C. No.1 of

2023 pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad, directly or indirectly, or in any manner.

iv. If the petitioner is holding passport, he shall surrender his original

passport before the trial Court and shall not leave the country

without permission of the trial Court.

v. Liberty is granted to the CBI and 2nd respondent to seek

cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner/A.3 in the event of

petitioner/A.3 interfering with the trial in S.C.No.1 of 2023

pending on the file of Principal Spl. Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad and threatens any witness.