Telangana High Court
Dr. Kasturi Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 23 September, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8752 of 2024
ORDER :
Petitioner/de facto complainant has preferred this criminal
petition seeking to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd
respondent/accused No.1, vide order dated 24.06.2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 on the file of Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crime
No.443 of 2021 of P.S. Rayadurgam.
2. Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Smt.Uma Devi Nama, counsel for petitioner/
de facto complainant and Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri C.Sunil Anand, counsel for respondent
No.2/accused No.1 and perused the record.
3. Petitioner herein, who has worked as President of
"Chitrapuri Sadhana Samithi", has lodged a complaint with the
Rayadurgam Police stating that the State Government has
allotted an extent of Acs.67.16 Guntas of land in Sy.No.246/1 of
JS, J
Manikonda Jagir to 'Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing
Society Limited' at Rs.40/- per square yard, for allotment to the
cine workers who are not having any land or houses. It is alleged
in the complaint that due to hike in prices of land in the area, the
2nd respondent herein, being the Secretary of the Union, admitted
9153 members into the Society against the available plots of
4213, by creating fake ID cards and by forging the signatures of
the Committee of IAS Officers appointed for allotment of plots.
Thus, it is alleged that the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has
allotted plots to the non-eligible persons and also got transferred
amounts from the accounts of the Society to the personal
accounts of the Members of the Society and thereby
misappropriated crores of rupees.
4. Basing on the above complaint, Crime No.443 of 2021 was
registered against the 2nd respondent herein and others for the
offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of
IPC. The 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has filed an application in
Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 before the trial Court, wherein, he has
questioned the registration of crime against him and also sought
JS, J
for grant of bail. The main ground urged for grant of bail was
that though the crime was registered in the year 2021, he was
arrested only on 21.05.2024 i.e. after lapse of three years and that
if any allegations are there against the Executive Committee
Members of the Society, the remedy for the aggrieved party is to
approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, but the
complainant has approached the Police and the Police, without
issuing notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., have arrested the
2nd respondent/accused No.1.
5. The prosecution has opposed the said application
contending that if accused No.1 is released on bail, he may
tamper the evidence and that he may abscond, as the other
accused in the crime were also absconding.
6. On considering the rival contentions of the parties,
ultimately, the trial Court has allowed the above application by
order, dated 24.06.2024 granting bail to the 2nd
respondent/accused No.1, however, by imposing certain
conditions. Condition No.(ii), which is alleged to have been
violated, reads as under:
JS, J
"The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not leave the
local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court
without prior permission of the concerned
Court."
7. The grounds urged for cancellation of bail are that the 2nd
respondent/accused No.1 has violated the above condition by
moving away from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the trial
Court without prior permission by visiting Vijayawada on
26.06.2024, by conducting a press meet on 27.06.2024
threatening the members who have filed cases against the
Managing Committee, stating that they will not get their houses
registered in their favour, and further, he has also participated in
the meeting held in connection with inauguration of the office of
"Telugu Film and Digital Industry Employees' Federation", at
Gandhinagar of Vijayawada on 28.06.2024.
8. The 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has opposed this
application for cancellation of bail by filing counter affidavit. In
the counter affidavit, while stating the facts of the case, it is
admitted that he went to Vijayawada on 26.06.2024 and
participated in the meeting of "Telugu Film and Digital Industry
Employees' Federation", at Gandhinagar on 28.06.2024,
JS, J
however, it is contended that the same was not done wantedly
but he went to Vijayawada to see his ailing father, who had
undergone amputation of his leg in a hospital there. It is also
stated in the counter affidavit that when the 2nd respondent/
accused No.1 was in Vijayawada, some of the Cine Field
Dignitaries have brought to his notice that as a President of the
"Telugu Film Employees' Federation", his presence at the
meeting with the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh would be
beneficial to the Film Industry, and hence, obliging them, he was
attended the meeting on 28.06.2024 and returned to Hyderabad
on the same day and appeared before the Station House Officer
concerned on the next day at Hyderabad. It is pleaded that the
said act of going to Vijayawada was not intentional nor
deliberate but was only on account of the urgency to see his
ailing/recovering father in the hospital at Vijayawada.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent/accused
No.1, in support of his case, has relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar
JS, J
Mishra and another 1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
extracted the following paragraph from its earlier judgment in
Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana2, as under:
"Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of
the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the
grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative
and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of
justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course
of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the
accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court,
on the basis of material placed on the record of the
possibility of the accused absconding is yet another
reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However,
bail once granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain
his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during
the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight
of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the
bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us
overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for
rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first
instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."
Thus, it is contended that in the present case, as there are no
overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail already
1999 SCC OnLine SC 205
(1995) 1 SCC 349
JS, J
granted, the learned Senior Counsel for 2nd respondent/accused
No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for 2nd respondent/accused
No.1 has also relied on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Myakala Dharmarajam and others v. State of
Telangana and another3, in support of his contention that
cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting
bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of
justice or if the court granting bail ignores relevant material
indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into
account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the
question of grant of bail to the accused.
11. Though the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has taken various
grounds questioning the validity of registration of crime against
him including that of the remedy to the de facto complainant to
approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies against the
alleged irregularities, this Court need not go into the validity of
the registration of crime or the validity of the order granting bail.
2020 CRI.L.J. 1457
JS, J
The short question that needs to be gone into in this petition is,
whether there is any violation of the conditions imposed by the
trial Court while granting bail, and if so, whether such violation
is sufficient to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd
respondent/accused No.1.
12. The admitted case of even the 2nd respondent/accused No.1
is that the trial Court has granted him bail on 24.06.2024 and he
was released on 26.06.2024. After his release from jail, he
received information that his father who had undergone
amputation of his leg, was in serious condition and admitted to
hospital with deteriorating health, and therefore, he had to rush to
Vijayawada to see his father. The further averments made in the
counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 in
paragraph No.11 disclose that on being approached by the
dignitaries of Cine Field, he had to attend a meeting relating to
their Society. Thus, while admitting his visiting Vijayawada
without permission of the Court, the 2nd respondent/accused No.1
has tried to justify his action by stating that he had to see his
ailing father at a private hospital at Vijayawada.
JS, J
13. On this, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner/de facto
complainant took an objection stating that the ailment of the
father of the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 was not that much
serious that he had no time to approach the trial Court seeking
permission to leave its territorial jurisdiction. He further
contended that even if it is assumed that the ailment of the father
of the petitioner was that much serious to be taken care of, the
subsequent conduct of the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 falsifies
the ground taken by him for travelling to Vijayawada, as he had
attended the meeting of "Telugu Film and Digital Industry
Employees' Federation" on the request made by some persons of
the Cine field. Thus, he contends that on the pretext of attending
his ailing father, which is also not that much serious illness, the
2nd respondent/accused No.1 has deliberately violated condition
No.(ii) imposed by the trial Court. The said condition was
imposed by the trial Court to prevent the 2nd respondent/accused
No.1 from interfering with the affairs of the Society in any
manner, but the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has displayed his
JS, J
disrespect to the orders of Court by conducting/attending the
meeting of the Society.
14. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat
Ram's case (2 supra) relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for
the 2nd respondent/accused No.1, bail once granted should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his
freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. This
judgment is not applicable to the case of the 2nd
respondent/accused No.1, but it rather supports the case of the
petitioner, as there exists supervening circumstance rendering it
no longer conducive to allow the accused to retain his freedom
by enjoying the concession of bail, as in this case, in spite of
there being condition imposed by the trial Court directing the 2nd
respondent/accused No.1 not to leave its local limits without
permission, he has violated the same by going to Vijayawada on
the very same day of his release from jail i.e. 26.06.2024.
Coming to the other judgment relied on by the learned Senior
JS, J
Counsel for 2nd respondent/accused No.1 in Myakala
Dharmarajam's case (3 supra), it also does not support his case,
as there is no dispute with regard to the law laid down in the said
judgment that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the
order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in
miscarriage of justice or if the court granting bail ignores
relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the
accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no
relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused. But, in
the case on hand, we are not testing the validity or otherwise of
the order granting bail and we are only dealing with the violation
of the condition imposed while granting bail. The ground stated
by the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 for going to Vijayawada that
it was only to see his ailing father, cannot be believed in view of
his subsequent act of participating in a meeting. It would have
been a different situation if the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 had
limited his journey to Vijayawada only to see his ailing father
without indulging in any other activities. Even otherwise, the
ailment of the father of 2nd respondent/accused No.1 is of not that
JS, J
much serious that he had no time to approach the trial Court
seeking permission. Without attempting to get permission from
the trial Court, the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has gone out of
its territorial jurisdiction on the very same day of his release from
jail and he went to the further extent of participating in the
meeting of the Telugu Film Employees' Federation. This
attitude of the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 clearly demonstrates
his disrespect to the order of the trial Court. No doubt, bail once
granted cannot be cancelled without substantial grounds for such
cancellation, but at the same time, it cannot be tolerated when the
conditions imposed by the Court while granting such bail are
violated. Courts will impose conditions while granting bail
taking into consideration the seriousness of the offences alleged.
If the accused is aggrieved of any of the conditions imposed
while granting bail to him, he can seek for relaxation of such
conditions, but he cannot violate the same. The present case is a
classic example of deliberate violation of the orders of Court.
15. The mere mentioning of the words "Medical Emergency"
is not sufficient but there must be real emergency circumstance
JS, J
that does not give a person sufficient time to obtain permission
from the Court. In this case, even according to the 2nd
respondent/accused No.1, as stated in the counter affidavit itself,
he went to Vijayawada to see his ailing/recovering father whose
leg was amputated. The leg was already amputated and his
father was "recovering". It, in no way, can be termed as a
"Medical Emergency". It is not the case where his father was
effected with severe heart stroke requiring his urgent presence
there to see him before his death or it is not even a case where his
condition was so serious that a decision has to be taken whether
his leg is to be amputated in order to save his life, so that the 2nd
respondent has to rush there to discuss with the doctors. There is
not at all "Medical Emergency" in this case, as the leg was
already amputated and the father of 2nd respondent was
recovering normally. Courts will always strive to protect the
personal liberty of citizens. That's why even there exist certain
circumstances against granting bail, still, bails will be granted by
imposing certain conditions, hoping that those conditions would
allow the accused to move with some freedom and at the same
JS, J
time, it would not prejudice the case of the prosecution. This is
to strike balance between the personal liberty of accused and the
grievance of the complainant.
16. While admitting to have flouted the bail condition by the
2nd respondent/accused No.1 by travelling to Vijayawada and
participating in some meeting there, learned Senior Counsel has
contended that the trial court did not impose any condition
preventing 2nd respondent from participating in such meeting and
that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner with such act of 2nd
respondent. This Court is unable to understand as to how the
trial Court expect that the 2nd respondent would participate in
such meeting at Vijayawada when there was a condition not to
leave its territorial jurisdiction itself. Further, what more
prejudice is to be caused to the petitioner when the 2nd
respondent has chaired the meeting against the interests of many
members, holding all the records in his custody. If such
deliberate violation of Court orders is not curtailed, there will not
be any sanctity to the Court orders. It is a clear misuse of the
liberty granted by the Court. Being not able to content with the
JS, J
liberty granted by the trial Court, the 2nd respondent has stretched
his legs beyond its territorial jurisdiction, on what can be termed
as, "an unreasonable ground. If the 2nd respondent is really
concerned about the ailment of his father, he should have sat
with him in the hospital itself worrying about his health, but
should not have participated in the meeting, by moving away
from the hospital. This shows the real intention behind his going
to Vijayawada.
17. As discussed above, the overall conduct of the 2nd
respondent/accused No.1 demonstrates his disrespect to the
orders of the trial Court imposing conditions while releasing him
on bail. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is
a fit case to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent/accused
No.1.
18. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed cancelling
the bail granted to the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 vide order,
dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 on the file of
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at
L.B.Nagar in Crime No.443 of 2021 of P.S. Rayadurgam. The
JS, J
2nd respondent/accused No.1 shall surrender before the trial
Court by or before 04.10.2024, and if he fails to surrender, the
trial Court shall take steps in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:23.09.2024
Note:
LR copy be marked.
(B/o)
Ksk
