Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D.Siva Shankar Reddy vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 August, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1904, 2719 and 2523 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:-
All the criminal petitions arise out of same crime number, against same respondents and the issue involved in all the three criminal petitions are also the same, but petitioners/accused are different. Hence all the three criminal petitions are being disposed of with a common order taking the Criminal Petition no.1904 of 2020 as a leading case.
Crl.P.No.1904 of 2022:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to release the petitioner/accused no.5 on bail pending enquiry and trial in connection with PRC No.2/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
Crl.P.No.2719 of 2022:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to release the petitioner/accused no.2 on bail in crime No.RC-4(S)/2020/CBI/SC.III/ND on the file of Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI, New Delhi-110003.
Crl.P.No.2523 of 2022:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to release the petitioner/accused no.3 on bail in Crime No. RC-4(S)/2020/CBI/SC.III/ND on the file of Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI, New Delhi-110003.2
2. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri A.Chennakesavulu, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-CBI.
3. The petitioner herein is alleged to be accused No.5/A5 in Crime No.84 of 2019 of Pulivendula Urban Police station under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code [for short Cr.P.C]. This being the 3rd bail application, filed by the petitioner/accused no.5.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.2019 at about 8.00a.m. one Mr. M.V. Krishna Reddy, Personal Assistant of Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy [herein after referred as the deceased] gave a report to the Police, Pulivendula stating that the deceased found in the bathroom lying in pool of blood with certain injuries. On the said complaint, Pulivendula Urban Police registered the same as a case in Crime No.84 of 2019 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. On that inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased was murdered by unknown persons. For investigating the same, Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted on 15.03.2019, headed by Additional DGP. During the course of investigation, basing on the statements of several witnesses, SIT arrested one Thummala Gangi Reddy @ Erra Gangi Reddy (A1) on 05.04.2019. Later confessional statements of the accused were recorded, they were remanded to judicial custody and released on bail consequently.
5. While that being so, Mrs.Y.Sowbhagyamma, wife of the deceased filed W.P.No.3944 of 2019 before this Court to entrust investigation to 3 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and another Writ Petition No.1639 of 2020 was filed by Dr.D.Sunitha Reddy, daughter of the deceased and her husband-Mr.N.Rajasekhar Reddy. This court by a common order dated 11.03.2020 allowed both the writ petitions and directed the CBI to conduct further investigation. During the course of investigation, CBI arrested one Sunil Yadav (A2) on 02.08.2021 at Goa and was remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2021 by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula and also arrested one Gajjala Uma Sankar Reddy (A3) and remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2021. On 25.08.2021 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and on 31.08.2021 164 (1) Cr.P.C. statement of Shaik Dasthagiri (A4) were recorded and he was granted pre-arrest bail by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa on 22.01.2021.
6. In the said statements, A4 revealed the role of each accused including himself. According to the statements, it is alleged that A1 informed to A4 that influential people are behind and they will give forty crores of rupees, out of which, A4 will be given five cores. It is also stated that one Sunil Yadav (A2) paid an amount of rupees one crore to A4 and further confessed that he purchased an axe, which was used in the commission of the offence. He further confessed that he caused an injury on the right palm of the deceased with the said axe. According to his statements, A1 informed A4 that he spoke to the petitioner and others and they have assured to take care of the issue.
7. Basing on the statement made by A4 under section 164 (1) Cr.P.C., the petitioner was included as accused No.5 (A5), he was arrested on 17.11.2021 and remanded to judicial custody on 18.11.2021. After completion of investigation, CBI filed 2nd charge sheet against A5 on 31.01.2022.
4
8. The respondent-CBI filed its counter stating that CBI registered the Case FIR No.RC-04(S)/2020/SC-III/ND Dt.09.07.2020 for commission of offences punishable U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code arising out of re-registration of Crime No.84 of 2019 of Police Station- Pulivendula, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh relating to the murder of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, in accordance with the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by this in Writ Petition No.3944 of 2019, 1639 of 2020. That subsequently after conducting initial investigation, CBI has filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pulivendula on 26.10.2021 against T.Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy (A-1) and three other accused persons namely Yadati Sunil Yadav (A-2), Sh. Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy (A-3) and Shaik Dasthagiri (A-4) for commission of offences U/s 302, 120-B IPC. That one of the accused Shaik Dasthagiri (A-4) has been tendered pardon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa under Section 306 Cr.P.C vide order dated 26.11.2021. The same was challenged by accused T. Gangi Reddy (A-1) and Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy (A-3) before this Court. This Court vide order dated 16.02.2022 dismissed their petition by upholding the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa. It is humbly submitted that while ordering investigation by CBI, Hon'ble High Court in the order dated 11.03.2020 observed that the dead body of the deceased was deliberately shifted from bathroom to bedroom and the blood in these two rooms was cleaned to destroy the valuable evidence and scene of crime and revealed apathy on the part of police though present there. The body was deliberately shifted to Government Area Hospital, Pulivendula, where only Inquest was held belatedly, instead of at the scene of offence. That, had the crime scene been 5 preserved and inquest was held at the spot and clues team was pressed into service, valuable clues could have been obtained.
9. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Court that the complaint of M.V.Krishna Reddy clearly shows that the deceased was murdered wherein he mentioned that approximately two liters of blood was pooled on floor of bedroom and so also blood was splashed on the floor of bathroom and there were injuries on the forehead, back of the head and on the palm of the deceased. However, the police registered the FIR under Section 174 Cr. P.C. as a suspicious death and only after completion of inquest, they altered section of law to 302 IPC and the murder of a high profile person was not given due importance by police. It is also observed by the Hon'ble High Court that even after 11 months after murder, the police have not traced the real culprits except arresting three accused persons namely T. Gangireddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy, M.V. Krishna Reddy and Yeddula Prakash for the offence under section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of the evidence of the murder. That there is a total fiasco on the part of the SIT although the SIT claimed that the investigation was concentrated in all angles i.e. financial, personal and political activities of the deceased to establish the motive and so far, it examined more than 100 witness and verified the antecedent's of all suspects. It is submitted that the supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 03.02.2022 against the accused petitioner D. Siva Shankar Reddy (A5), U/s 201 & 120-B r/w 302 & 201 IPC and Yerra Gangi Reddy (A1) u/Sec.201, 506 & 120-B r/w 201 IPC in continuation to the charge sheet filed by CBI on 26.10.2021 against Yerra Gangi Reddy (A1),Yadati Sunil Yadav (A2), Gajjala Uma Sankar Reddy (A3) and Shaik Dasthagiri (A4). That accused petitioner D. Siva Shankar Reddy, along with other charge sheeted accused namely Yadati 6 Sunil Yadav and Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy are presently in judicial custody at Central Prison Kadapa whereas accused Yerra Gangi Reddy is enlarged on default bail and Shaik Dasthagiri has already been granted anticipatory bail.
10. The further investigation is still continuing on the issue of larger conspiracy and destruction of scene of crime. That it has been revealed during investigation that accused D Siva Shankar Reddy on 15.03.2019 visited the house of YS Vivekananda Reddy at around 06:30 am. He was part of conspiracy for propagation of heart attack theory relating to death of YS Vivekanand Reddy. It is revealed that he had informed Sakshi TV that YS Vivekananda Reddy died due to heart attack and also contacted CI of Pulivendula to reach the house of YS Vivekananda Reddy to control the mob. Thereafter, the accused petitioner actively participated in destruction of scene of crime by way of cleaning the bedroom, bathroom and getting wounds cleaned with the help of compounder Sri Gajjala Jaiprakash Reddy and others. Thereafter, he got bandaged the said wounds of deceased to hide the same in pursuance to the conspiracy already designed. That it has been revealed during investigation that the room was bolted from inside while the cleaning and bandaging were being done as per directions of A5 and his close associates.
11. During investigation that D.Siva Shankar Reddy and his close associates convinced the visiting persons that YS Vivekananda Reddy died due to blood vomiting and heart attack. That it is has been revealed during investigation that D.Siva Shankar Reddy scolded CI Shankaraiah to keep mum and also instructed that they have to manage it as heart attack and blood vomiting. Further he also obstructed carrying out the photography/ videography of the actual 7 scene of crime while he was trying to destroy the evidence present at the scene of crime. It has been revealed during investigation that the conspiracy for murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy was hatched at the behest of accused D Siva Shankar Reddy and his close associates, one month prior to the murder by way of offering huge amount of money to the charge sheeted accused persons. That it has been revealed during investigation that D.Siva Shankar Reddy also called Shaik Dasthagiri in the month of March 2021 in the house of Bayupu Reddy (close friend) at Pulivendula for briefing not to disclose his name and others before CBI. It is also revealed during investigation that accused D.Siva Shankar Reddy is found influencing/inducing the vital witnesses. That during investigation D.Siva Shankar Reddy was found involved in the conspiracy of murder and destruction of evidence at the scene of crime. Therefore he was arrested on 17.11.2021 at 4 p.m. at Hyderabad by observing all legal formalities. He was medically got examined and found fit for further proceedings. Thereafter, he was produced before the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad who, after granted one day transit remand for production of D.Siva Shankar Reddy before 5 p.m. on 18.11.2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First class Pulivendula.
12. That accused D.Siva Shankar Reddy was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa from Central Prison, Kadapa without due permission of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pulivendula, Kadapa. It was observed adversely by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pulivendula who observed that, "this type of practice from the prison authorities is highly deprecated by this Court. In this regard, the office is directed to issue a show cause notice to the Superintendent, Central Prison, 8 Kadapa seeking explanation to the satisfaction of this court for violation of Rule under Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979".
13. That the petitioner is an influential person having political background. As per the police records, he has been involved in 31 other criminal cases which clearly indicates the history and criminal background of the accused. The further investigation is still continuing on the issue of larger conspiracy and destruction of scene of crime and granting bail to accused D.Siva Shankar Reddy may affect the investigation as there is every likelihood that he may also try to influence material witnesses relevant to the case. That it is suspected that several witnesses in the case are being influenced at the behest of petitioner D.Siva Shankar Reddy. Three witnesses namely 1.Gangadhar Reddy r/o 7/142-1 Kunta Street, Yadiki Mandalmu Kunta Street Yadiki, Distt. Anathapuram, Andhra Pradesh, 2. J. Shankariah r/o 3-1- 202 Chenna Reddy Colony, Pulivendula Town, Dist. Kadapa (the then CI Pulivendula) and 3. MV Krishna Reddy r/o D.No.3-5-57/2, near Mittamalleswara Oriental High School, Pulivendula Town, Kadapa, the PA of the deceased and informant in the FIR, are already suspected to have come under the influence of the petitioner and other conspirators. That during the course of investigation Sri Gangadhar Reddy himself approached CBI thereafter his statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C was recorded on 02.10.2021 wherein he stated that after the murder of Sri Vivekananda Reddy he was approached by the accused petitioner D.Shankar Reddy in the month of August, 14 2019, requesting to take responsibility for the murder (as the persons involved in the murder are new persons and may reveal the truth), for which he would be given Rs. 10 Crores. On 25.11.2021, Shri Gangadhar Reddy gave his willingness in writing also before the Investigating Officer of CBI to record his 9 statement before Magistrate. Accordingly, on an application filed by CBI, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kadapa vide order dated 27.11.2021 nominated the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu to record statement of Sri Gangadhar Reddy u/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. However, on 29.11.2021 it came to notice that said Sri Gangadhar Reddy gave a statement before media that he is being pressurized by CBI to give statement. Thereafter, Sri Gangadhar Reddy also gave a representation to this effect to the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram who marked this complaint to Sri V.N.K.Chaitanya, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tadipatri Taluk, Ananthapuram District.
14. One Sri Jagdeeshwar Reddy who is witness in this case and whose statement has been recorded by the CBI in the instant case, submitted a complaint dated 04.12.2021 to the Investigating Officer of CBI that he is being called/harassed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sri V.N.K.Chaitanya on the pretext of conducting enquiries on the aforementioned representation of Sri Gangadhar Reddy. That during investigation CBI has examined Sri J. Shankaraiah (CI Pulivendula at the time of the incident, suspended for dereliction of duty in connection with the incident), and recorded his statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. On 28.09.2021 he gave his willingness in writing to record his statement before a Magistrate. Accordingly, on an application filed by CBI, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa vide order dated 30.09.2021 nominated the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu to record statement of Sri J.Shankaraiah u/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. However, he did not come forward to record his statement and denied to appear before the Magistrate. He took the plea of being busy in his service matter with police authorities in Kurnool. After one week of this refusal 10 of Sri J.Shankariah, his suspension was revoked on 06.10.2021 and he has been reinstated in service.
15. On the other hand 2nd respondent who is the daughter of the deceased filed counter and submitted that in the 2nd/supplementary charge sheet dated 31.01.2022, the investigation agency has clearly shown the new line of investigation and has clearly given the role of all the accused in regard to destruction of scene of crime and bigger conspiracy of murder and their role in participating with the other persons who are involved in the crime apart from the present accused and the entire charge sheet reveals about the involvement of the petitioners who have filed the bail applications. A5 who has so much influence in the local public at Pulivendula and Kadapa and by virtue of his influence, though he is in jail, through his followers he can influence any person and there are followers who had put up several flexi boards at Pulivendula Town from 19.12.2021 to 26.12.2021 showing his might and support to the ruling party. Investigation further revealed that A5 has been threatening the witnesses and the investigation agency has to investigate further witnesses and arrest the real culprits in the crime. The contentions of the accused that A4 has been pardoned u/Sec.306 Cr.P.C and by virtue of that who has been involved in the crime has been granted anticipatory bail and the accused are also entitled in the same fashion is absolutely unsustainable. In fact, the proviso under Section 306 Cr.P.C. is an independent provision given power to the Court to tender a pardon, if the said accused discloses the clear facts of the crime scene making the investigating agency to investigate for finding the real culprits and more so over if the said statement does not comply with the conditions of the pardon an action can be initiated against the said person, the 11 same principle cannot be applied to the accused and this Hon'ble Court has clearly dealt with the said issue.
16. Further submitted that the investigating agency has been trying to get the main culprits in the larger conspiracy of the crime and by virtue of their influence of all the accused, they have been trying to divert the case by influencing and threatening the witnesses and prayed to dismiss the bail applications.
17. The main allegation against the petitioner herein is the conspiracy for murder of the deceased at the behest of the petitioner and his close associates one month prior to the commission of the offence by offering huge amounts to other accused. It is also alleged that the petitioner visited the house of the deceased on 15.03.2019 at about 6.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence. He is said to have made the propaganda that the deceased died due to heart attack. The petitioner contacted Circle Inspector of Police Pulivendula and requested him to control the mob and actively participated in cleaning the bed room, bath room and putting bandages on the injuries of the deceased, thereby actively participated in destruction of the scene of crime along with A1. Further alleged that the petitioner called Shaik Dasthagiri (A4) to the house of his friend Bayapu Reddy and instructed him not to disclose his name and others before the CBI.
18. Basing on the above said factual aspects Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for A5 has submitted his arguments that in view of the charge sheet filed by the respondents, the Court has taken cognizance has given P.R.C.No.02 of 2022 on 10.02.2022 under sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 and 120-B r/w 201 IPC against A1 and 302, 120-B IPC against A2 to A4 and against petitioner only 12 under section 201 and 120-B r/w 302 and 201 IPC has taken. Considering the charge sheet, cognizance has taken by the Court below and the matter is committed. In the said circumstances, there is no necessity for the petitioners to be put behind the bars.
19. The second contention raised by the senior counsel is that though it is a second bail application but the earlier bail applications were rejected by this court vide Crl.P.No.7550 of 2020 dated 17.01.2022. The investigation is at crucial stage hence this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly dismissed. But at present the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, Kadapa District on 03.02.2022 itself. In the said circumstances even in the observations made by this Court in earlier occasion while rejecting the bail application it is not existing as of now. In view of the changed circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for bail. On factual aspects, the learned senior counsel has submitted his argument that even according to the charge sheet filed by the respondents, the allegations made against the petitioner at para no.16-7 and 8 clearly discloses that it is only pre-occurrence of the incident. Hence the participation of the petitioner only in post-occurrence which attracts Section 201. According to Section 201 the maximum punishment is only seven years. Hence it is clear that there are no allegations specific overt acts against the petitioner with regard to pre- occurrence. At any costs if the petitioner involvement is to be considered under Section 201 r/w 120-B is entitled for enlarge on bail.
13
20. Learned senior counsel further argued that the very basis for including the petitioner as accused no.5 is basing on the statement made by A4. Even according to A4's statement under Section 306 Cr.P.C., according to the said statement it is very clear that there is no direct contact of A4 with the petitioner. Except a bold statement stating that A2 has taken A4 to A1's house where he has made a call to the petitioner, except that there are no contacts of A4 with petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner by A4 under Section 306 Cr.P.C is only with regard to post incident. Hence there are no specific allegations or overt acts against the petitioner with regard to the pre-incidents. Hence section 120-B IPC with regard to pre- incident under Section 302 IPC would not attract to the petitioner. To support his contention learned counsel has taken this Court to various paragraphs in the statement made by A4 under Section 306 Cr.P.C.
21. Learned senior counsel further argued that in the instant case, even according to the statement made by A4 and the eye witness Rangayya, clearly discloses that A1 to A4 are participated in the incident and A1 was already granted bail by the Court below and A4 has also granted bail with the help of the investigating agency. Hence all in parity suffered when the accused those who have participated in the crime were already granted bail. But without considering the same, the Court below has rejected bail of the petitioner is baseless and not reasonable order.
22. Learned senior counsel further emphasised his argument that the Court below i.e. IV Additional District Court, Kadapa while 14 rejecting the bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.93/2022 in Cr.No.84/2019 of Pulivendula police station on 02.3.2022 has not considered properly and rejected the bail on extraneous reasons. Though in the said bail application, the petitioner has pleaded specifically on health grounds. But without properly appreciating the same, the Court below has dismissed.
23. Learned counsel Sri Chidambaram, appearing on behalf of 2nd accused while adopting the arguments of the other senior counsel, has contended that though there are specific allegations/averments made against A5, but the 2nd accused in the instant case is a small man and there are no specific allegations that he will tamper with the evidence. The factum of filing of charge sheet when there are no specific allegations that he will interfere with the investigation or tamper with the evidences, he requested for grant of bail by imposing any conditions.
24. Learned Counsel Sri T.L.Nagin Kumar, appearing on behalf of the third accused would submit that in the entire charge sheet and also in the supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI there are no allegations against this accused and only at the instance of A4 only the name of this accused was included in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet. Therefore, bail may be granted to this accused.
25. Replying to the contentions and submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-CBI strongly controverting the same, submitted that the petitioner was main supporter of the crime and prima facie there is sufficient material on record to prove his involvement in the alleged offence. It is thus obvious that the nature of 15 the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent, the court has also to consider the likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the witnesses for the prosecution and otherwise involvement of the process of justice. In the instant case in order to prove the prima facie case against the petitioner, the prosecution has mainly relied on the statement made by A4 under 164 (1) Cr.P.C.
26. During the course of investigation, it came to the light that the accused (A5)/the petitioner herein on the date of offence i.e. on 15.03.2019 visited the house of the deceased at about 6.30a.m., on receipt of the information of the death. There are facts and circumstances that he participated in the conspiracy by propagating that said YS Vivekananda Reddy/deceased died in view of heart attack and contacted with Circle Inspector of Pulivendula to reach the house of deceased to control the mob, the theory of heart attack was allegedly propagated and there are evidences that the petitioner/accused actively participated in the destruction of scene of offence, by way of cleaning bath room, bed room and getting the wounds cleaned with the help of compounder Shri Gajjala Jaiprakash Reddy and others. Thereafter he got bandaged on the said wounds of the deceased to hide the same in pursuance of the conspiracy. During the course of investigation, it is further found that the room was bolted inside while cleaning and bandaging were going on as per the directions of the petitioner. There is also evidence that one month prior to the incident, the petitioner conspired with the other accused by offering huge remuneration. Further investigation discloses that the accused has scolded the Circle Inspector- Shankaraiah to keep mum and also instructed that they have to manage as if it was a heart attack and blood vomiting. In view of the above, it clearly found that the petitioner was involved in the 16 conspiracy of murder and destruction of the evidence at the scene of crime.
27. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that the petitioner/accused is found involved in influencing the vital witnesses and inducing them during investigation and his involvement was found in the larger conspiracy of murder and destruction of scene of crime. He further submitted that CBI has already filed an application under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to T.Gangi Reddy (A1) on the ground that he was found influencing and threatening the vital witnesses during the investigation and the same was dismissed by the court below on the ground that the bail is granted under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Further submitted that investigation is still continuing and they have filed charge sheet against some of the accused and in view of the same, if bail is granted in favour of the petitioner, he may influence the other witnesses.
28. As contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation that as per the counter filed by the respondents, it clearly discloses the interference of the petitioner in influencing the witnesses. In fact, initially one K.Srinivasareddy is brother in law of Parameswar Reddy, had voluntarily came and given a statement and subsequently he has committed suicide on 02.9.2019 in a very intriguing circumstances. According to the post- mortem examination report, it clearly reveals that he allegedly consumed organophosphate, an insecticide poison and died in his lands at Kusunuru. But the post-mortem revealed that some quantity of blood was found in the hepatorenal pouch indicating that the collection of blood in the pouch may not be on account of poison 17 but on account of external or internal injuries. But the death was registered as Cr.No.188/2019 of Simhadripuram police station under Section 174 Cr.P.C. At any rate, said death of K.Srinivasa Reddy is a mysterious one. In fact while considering the issue to transfer the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation, High Court has not convinced the investigation made by the Special Investigation Team and observed that the investigation agency i.e. Special Investigation Team has not achieved a major breakthrough. Hence further investigation of the case was handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation. Learned Counsel further brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is a highly influential person and he is having political functionary and is an active in political party which is in power. He has also argued that there is a clear motive to eliminate Sri Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy for his political gain in the District. According to the statement made by A4, it clearly reveals the involvement of the petitioner from the day one of planning to murder to till screening of evidences. Even prior to the incident, there is clear evidence that the petitioner has involved in the conspiracy with A1, A2 and A4.
29. Learned senior counsel Sri Posani Venkateswarlu appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant has submitted that there is no distinction between the pre and post incident and he specifically contended that while taking the charge sheet into consideration, the Court below has committed the petitioner not only under Section 201 Cr.P.C it is under section 201 and 120-B r/w 302 IPC. Hence as contended by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner has committed only under section 201 and 120-B is not correct. Basing 18 on the participation in the post incident, the involvement of the petitioner in the pre-incident can be inferred with the contact of the petitioner to the incident. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that according to the statement made by A4, it is very clear that even prior to the incident they were in touch with petitioner and A2 has clearly at the place of A1 with A2 by A4. They called the petitioner over phone and they have disclosed that whatever A1 says behind he should follow. It is also an admitted fact that the payment of huge amounts to A4 and the said amounts were also recovered from A4 and according to the statements it is clear that the said amounts were not arranged by the petitioner herein. Further learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is an influential person in the District and he is general secretary to the political party which is in power. For that reason only though the petitioner was released on temporary bail, while releasing from the jail in the entire town has seized and erected flexis to show his power. These type of incidents he could able to manage the witnesses very easily. Learned senior counsel further brought to the notice of this court that there are several cases pending against the petitioner and the list of cases which are filed and pending against the petitioners are placed in the material papers that shows almost more than thirty cases were filed and some of them are pending. In view of the said circumstances and considering the heinous crime, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. If he is enlarged on bail, he would have easily hamper the investigation as well as witnesses. Hence requested to dismiss the bail application. To support his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments. 19
1. Virupakshappa Gouda and another vs. State of Karnataka and another1 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants had moved the special leave petition before this Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge after filing of the charge- sheet which was challenged in the High Court and that had travelled to this Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of by the learned trial Judge. He has been swayed by the observations made in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), especially in paragraph 86, the relevant part of which reads thus:-
1. "The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court."
2. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. and another[3]. The requisite factors are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another[4], it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors. We may usefully reproduce the said passage:-
3. "9....among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
4. (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed the offence.
5. (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
6. (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
7. (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
8. (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
9. (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
10. (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
11. (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
12. 17. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy[5], the Court had reiterated the principle by observing thus:- "While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing 1 (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406 20 the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
13. 18. From the aforesaid principles, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. In this context, we may, with profit, reproduce a passage from Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another[6], wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed:-
14. "The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle.
It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law."
2. State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota Subharao2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.2
1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 605 21
3. Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India and others3 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
A conspiracy thus, is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long aits performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalised or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice versa
4. Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and Another4 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
In the said case it has been highlighted that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.
5. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee5 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
We are constrained to observe that in the instant case, while dealing with the application of the accused for grant of bail, the High Court completely lost sight of the basic principles enumerated above. The accused, in the present case, is alleged to have committed a heinous crime of killing an old helpless lady by strangulation. He was seen coming out of the victim's house by a neighbour around the time of the alleged occurrence, giving rise to a reasonable belief that he had committed the murder. We feel that under the given circumstances, it was not the stage at which bail under Section 439 of the Code should have been granted to the accused, more so, when even charges have not yet been framed. It is also pertinent to note that, as stated above, the 3 (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 609 4 2012 AIR SCW 5567 5 LAWS(SC) 2010 10 111 22 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected three bail applications of the accused but the High Court did not find it worthwhile to even make a reference to these orders. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following observations echoed in (2001) 4 SCC 224 (2005) 3 SCC 143 (2002) 9 SCC 364 (2005) 7 SCC 326 Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr.9:-
"In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted." (See also: Ram Pratap Yadav Vs. Mitra Sen Yadav & Anr.10)
14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The bail bond and the surety furnished by the accused in terms of the impugned order stands cancelled and it is directed that he will be taken into custody forthwith. Needless to add that observations touching the merits of the case against the accused are purely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and if in future any such application is filed by the accused, it shall be considered on its own merits untrammelled by any of these observations.
30. Replying to the arguments of the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the investigation in relation to crime is completed and the charge sheet has been submitted, therefore no question of influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence would not arise.
Hence grant of bail would not arise in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Virupakshappa Gouda and another vs. State of Karnataka and another (cited supra) wherein the Court has clearly stated that just because of filing charge sheet is not a ground of change of circumstances. In fact learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant has submitted that filing of charge sheet is not a changed circumstance.
31. Further as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in between Virupakshappa Gouda and another vs. State of Karnataka and another in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that filing of charge sheet does not in any manner of change of circumstances and also observed by the Hon'ble 23 Apex Court with regard to Section 120-B IPC in judgment reported in between Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India and others (cited supra) wherein it is observed that conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. Till it is executed it is a continuous offence. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to post incident cannot be considered. Though grant of bail is a discretionary order but it has to be passed on well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court in between Manoj Kumar Khokkar vs. State of Rajasthan6 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
(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."
As per the above noted principles while granting bail though it has to be considered the period of custody but it should be weighed with the totality of the circumstances and that the criminal antecedents of the accused. Though liberty of the individual is an invaluable right, but at the same time while considering the application for bail, Courts cannot lose sight of serious nature of the accusations against an accused and facts that having baring in the case and supported by adequate material brought on record and prima-facie conclusions supported by reasons.
6 2022 (3) SCC 501 24
32. Considering the seriousness of the crime, the bail applications were rejected by the Court below as well as this court in the first instance, this Court feels no fresh grounds for considering bail at this stage. Hence, all the three criminal petitions are rejected.
33. Accordingly, all the three criminal petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 01.8.2022 RD 25 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1904, 2719 and 2523 of 2022 Dated 01.8.2022 RD