Dasari Raja Shekar Shekar vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 3062 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dasari Raja Shekar Shekar vs The State Of Telangana on 13 March, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

      CRIMINAL PETITION No.15399 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS')

by petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the order, dated

07.12.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, at

Nizamabad, in Crl.MP.No.642 of 2024 in Crl.MP.No.455 of

2022 in Crime No.67 of 2022 on the file of Station House

Officer, Police Station Morthad.

2. Heard Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for

petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. A challenge is made to order, dated 07.12.2024,

passed in Crl.MP.No.642 of 2024 in Crl.MP.No.455 of 2022

in Crime No.67 of 2022 by learned Sessions Judge, at

Nizamabad, wherein a petition filed under Section 439(2)

Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail granted to petitioner herein was

allowed.

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

4. It is the specific case of petitioner that cancellation of

bail of petitioner/accused No.1 (Dasari Raja Shekar) on the

ground that he threatened PW.6/LW.9 Vanam Ramu not to

come to Court to depose the evidence against him is false

and baseless. It is further the case that learned Sessions

Judge by order, dated 07.12.2024, cancelled the bail

granted to petitioner by misconstruing the facts and failed

to appreciate the entire issue in proper perspective.

5. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner/accused No.1

that witnesses PWs.1 to 5 were examined on various dates

and that PW.6/LW.9 was examined on 23.09.2024. The

depositions of witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 6 are placed on

record vide memo USR No.28058/25, dated 12.03.2025. It

is further submitted that, on perusal of the depositions of

the witnesses (PWs.1 to 6), no case is made out, of the

allegation of witnesses being threatened. It is also

submitted that the trial Court disbelieving the version of

petitioner/accused No.1 cancelled the bail. It is submitted

that the brother of deceased cleverly managed to get the

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

bail cancelled. It is pointed out that the facts pleaded

before the trial Court for cancellation of bail are baseless.

6. It is submitted that for cancellation of bail granted,

cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary and

no such circumstances are made out. It is further

submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in

not construing the facts and law in proper perspective. It is

also submitted that the bail granted was cancelled in a

mechanical manner without application of mind.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that learned

Sessions Judge rightly cancelled the bail granted for cogent

reasons. It is further submitted that petitioner/accused

No.1 threatened the witness PW.6 (LW.9) and contravened

the conditions imposed for grant of bail. It is also

submitted that brother of the deceased lodged a complaint

against petitioner/accused No.1, and Police registered

Crime No.121 of 2024 under Sections 351 and 232 of BNS.

It is urged that that no interference is necessitated as

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

threatening a witness not to depose evidence is a serious

offence and the very concept of fair trial is hit.

8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and

considered the rival submissions.

9. An FIR bearing No.67 of 2022 was registered on

02.08.2022 on the basis of complaint made by one

Shri Jagannadh Gandaiah under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

(suspicious). A Charge Sheet was filed under Sections 302

and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Petitioner herein is

accused No.1. The brother of the deceased filed a complaint

on the ground that one of the witnesses i.e., Vanam Raju

(PW.6/LW.9) was threatened by petitioner not to depose

evidence against him. On the basis of the said complaint, a

crime bearing No.121 of 2024 was registered under

Sections 351 and 232 of BNS. A petition was filed in the

Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, at

Nizamabad, by the State. Crl.MP.No.642 of 2024 in

Crl.MP.No.455 of 2022 in Crime No.67 of 2022 is filed

under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of

petitioner/accused No.1.

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

10. Before delving any further, it is pertinent to extract

the contents of the document, a request for cancellation of

bail (document annexed at page No. 54) which throws light

on certain events. The relevant extract is as follows:

"With reference to the above subject cited, it is to submit that the Hon'ble Court has granted bail to the accused persons A-1 to A-5 in the Cr.No.67/22 U/s 302, 201 read with 34 IPC (S.C.No.59/2023) of PS Morthad and they released on bail. The Hon'ble Court has issued summons to witnesses by fixing trial form 01.10.2024 onwards. After completion of service of summons to witnesses, the accused Dasari Rajashekhar came to know that summons are served to the witnesses and approached the LW- 06 Vanam Ramu and threatened to see his end, and he held panchayath in caste elders, if he comes to the Hon'ble Court to depose his evidence against him. Due to which the accused has created panic among the witnesses by way of threatening. As such all the witnesses are scared of the accused A-1 and there is every possibility of turning hostile or they may not come to the court to depose their evidence.

In this regard Deceased brother Jagannath Sai Baba came to PS lodge a petition I registered a case in Cr.No.121/24 u/s 351, 232 BNS took up the investigation.

It is respectfully submitted that due to acts of the accused A-1, all the witnesses are fear of the accused and they may turn hostile or not come to the Court. It is necessary to create confidence among the witness to come to the Court to depose evidence without fear and hesitation."

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

11. The contents of this document assume importance as

it is stated in the request, that witness PW.6/LW.9 (Vanam

Ramu) was threatened not to depose, that the

petitioner/accused No.1 would see his end, and in this

regard a panchayath was held among the elders.

12. Learned counsel for petitioner placed on record

depositions of witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 6, who were

examined on various dates. PW.1/LW.1 was examined on

11.06.2024. PW.2/LW.3 was examined on 17.09.2024.

PW.3/LW.4 was examined on 17.09.2024. PW.4/LW.6 was

examined on 18.09.2024. PW.5/LW.2 was examined on

23.09.2024.

13. PW.6/LW.9 was examined on 23.09.2024, his chief

examination was further deferred at request. It is after the

deferment of chief examination, certain events took place.

An FIR came to be lodged and a request was made for

cancellation of bail of petitioner/accused No.1. A crime was

registered in crime No.121 of 2024 under Sections 351 and

232 of BNS.

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

14. Learned Sessions Judge by order, dated 07.12.2024,

cancelled the bail granted to petitioner. Learned Judge

considered the pleadings in the counter affidavit filed by

petitioner/accused No.1 and the contentions raised by

Public Prosecutor. The following is the relevant portion of

order, dated 07.12.2024:

"In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "Rejection of bail in a non- bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the ball 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 or 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."

6) Perusal of the material placed on record shows that the respondent/A1 contravened the conditions

(1995) 1 SCC 349

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

imposed by this Court by threatening PW6/Vanam Ramu and that the brother of deceased lodged complaint against the respondent/A1 upon which, the police Morthad registered a case in crime No.121 of 2024 under Section 351, 232 BNS. The witnesses who came to the Court also informed that the respondent is threatening them not to give evidence. Therefore, in the said situation, in order to create confidence among the witnesses to come to the court to depose evidence without fear and hesitation the bail may be cancelled. The circumstances shown by the prosecution are justifying for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent/A1.

7) Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The bail granted to the respondent/A1 by this Court on 08.11.2024 in Crl.MP.No.455 of 2022 is hereby cancelled and the concerned SHO is at liberty to arrest the respondent/A1."

15. In paragraph No.6, the trial Court in its order

observed as follows:

"The witnesses who came to the court also informed that respondent is threatening them not to give evidence. Therefore, in the said situation, in order to create confidence among the witnesses to come to the court to depose evidence without fear and hesitation, the bail may be cancelled."

16. The trial Court further held that circumstances

shown by prosecution are justifiable for cancellation of bail

of petitioner/accused No.1.

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

17. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in X v. State of

Telangana 2 and contended that accused cannot be

deprived of his liberty/freedom and the cancellation of bail

is not proper. The relevant portion of the judgment relied

upon is as follows:

"14. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] observed that : (SCC pp. 350-51, para 4) "4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. 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 or 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

(2018) 16 SCC 511

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

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."

18. In the judgment of the Apex Court (supra) broad

grounds for cancellation of bail are spelled out which are

relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

It is settled principle of law that bail once granted should

not be cancelled, unless cogent and overwhelming

circumstances are shown, based on a supervening event(s).

In the present case, petitioner/accused No.1 threatened

PW.6/LW.9 Vanam Ramu. Reliance is placed on

depositions of witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 6 and contended

that none of the witnesses deposed that petitioner/accused

no.1 threatened them.

19. Deposition of witness PW.6/LW.9 (chief examination)

was on 23.09.2024, further chief examination was deferred

at request. It is this witness who was threatened, a

complaint was lodged, crime registered, a petition was

moved for cancellation of bail. It is evident from the

document annexed at page No.54 that petitioner/accused

No.1 approached PW.6 and threatened him not to depose

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

evidence against him and that a panchayat before caste

elders was held with regard to the same. It is not the case

of respondent State that petitioner/accused No.1

threatened all the witnesses, there is a specific statement

that petitioner/accused No.1 approached PW.6/LW.9

(Vanam Ramu) and threatened to see his end, even a

panchayath was held.

20. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is

that a false case is foisted by the brother of the deceased to

get the bail cancelled. It belies the logic of this Court to

accept such a contention. The brother of the deceased had

the option to lodge a complaint at any point of time, much

prior to getting the bail cancelled, even if assumed, it is a

false complaint. But, it is only after the event of threatening

PW.6/LW.9, a complaint was lodged and a crime

registered, no explanation is offered for this. The trial

Court, considering the version of Public Prosecutor and the

averments in the counter affidavit filed by petitioner,

cancelled the bail.

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

21. An accused if granted bail, shall not threaten the

witnesses. Bail is granted to an accused in the facts and

circumstances of a case, taking into consideration the

liberty/freedom. The accused has to abide by the

conditions of bail. A primary condition imposed, while

grant of bails, is that the accused shall not in any manner

threaten any of the witnesses. If the accused threatens any

of the witnesses in any manner not to depose, then the

very purpose of a fair trial would be hit.

22. This Court is conscious of the fact that bail once

granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner.

Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of

administration of justice by threatening the witness is a

cogent and overwhelming circumstance for cancellation of

bail.

23. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that witness

PW.6/LW.09 (Vanam Ramu) was threatened not to depose,

that the petitioner/accused No.1 would see his end, and in

this regard a panchayath was held among the elders.

Suffice to state that threatening a witness not to depose,

JAK, J CRLP_15399_2024

that petitioner/accused no.1 would see the end is a cogent

and overwhelming circumstance for cancellation of bail.

Principle of fair trial is the bedrock of a just and equitable

criminal justice system. Threatening a witness goes to the

root of the case, threatening a witness results in an unfair

trial.

24. No perversity or illegality is demonstrated in the

order. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be

dismissed.

25. For reasons aforesaid, the Criminal Petition stands

dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 13.03.2025 KRR