Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Ganga Bala Krishna Murthy on 13 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4748, 4749, 4756 & 4769 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed by the Public
Prosecutor to cancel the anticipatory bail to the
respondents/accused, dated 22.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.13 of
2024 in Crime No.35 of 2024, Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2024 in Crime
No.34 of 2024, Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2024 in Crime No.33 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2024 in Crime No.32 of 2024,
respectively, by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge,
Bodhan.
2. Heard Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner-State
as well as Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused in all the
cases.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
accused approached the trial Court and obtained anticipatory
bail on 22.02.2024. He further submitted that the Station
House Officer challenged this order, but it was dismissed on
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4748 of 2024 and batch
19.03.2024. He contended that the anticipatory bail should
not have been granted as the investigation is ongoing and the
presence of the accused is necessary for further investigation,
especially since they are suspected of misappropriating over
Rs.5 crores of public funds. Therefore, he prayed the Court to
cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court by allowing
this Criminal Petitions.
4. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v.
State of U.P. and Anr 1, wherein in paragraph Nos.31, 32 and
33, it is held as follows
C. Cancellation of bail
31. This Court has reiterated in several instances
that 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 trial. Having said that, in case of
cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order directing
cancellation of bail (which was already granted).
32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram
v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4748 of 2024 and batch
(1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] laid down
the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice;
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice;
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused
in any manner;
(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;
(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;
(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the
evidence or threatening witnesses.
33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail
cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening
circumstances. This Court certainly has the
inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of
an accused even in the absence of supervening
circumstances. Following are the illustrative
circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:
33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into
account irrelevant material of substantial nature
and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant
material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the
influential position of the accused in comparison to
the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when
there is prima facie misuse of position and power
over the victim.
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4748 of 2024 and batch
33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of
the accused is completely ignored while granting
bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable
grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the
order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to
justice.
33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently
whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of
the given case.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in
the first place given the very serious nature of the
charges against the accused which disentitles him
for bail and thus cannot be justified.:"
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that there are no grounds to cancel the bail granted
by the trial Court and there are no allegations against the
accused to show that they violated the conditions imposed by
the trial Court. He further submitted that the accused are co-
operating with the Investigating Officer, furthermore, the
cases were registered basing on the false allegations.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal
petitions.
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4748 of 2024 and batch
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, it is evident that the petitions fail to demonstrate that
the accused breached the conditions set by the trial court. The
Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav (supra), which
emphasizes that bail can be revoked if the granting Court
considers irrelevant material or ignores relevant information.
However, this ground is not applicable in the present cases, as
the trial court carefully evaluated the petitions and the
submissions of the Public Prosecutor. Furthermore, there is
no evidence that the accused has intimidated witnesses, who
are primarily official witnesses, or has a prior criminal record.
Therefore, these criminal petitions lack merit and the same
are liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 13.02.2025
SAI
