Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 October, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6907 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking bail, by the petitioner/sole accused in Cr.No.195 of 2022 of Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada, initially registered under Section 174 CrPC, later altered to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016 (for short, 'the Act').
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the deceased worked as a driver of the accused for about six (06) years and at the time of his marriage, the deceased borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the accused and repaid Rs.30,000/- leaving a balance amount of Rs.20,000/- and about three months back the deceased discontinued to work at the accused. Since then, the accused was pressurizing the deceased for repayment of balance amount and on the night of 19.05.2022, the accused contacted the father of the deceased over phone and warned the 2 deceased severely to see his end, if the amount is not paid. Later, when the deceased was consuming liquor with his friends at Nava Bharat school, Kakinada, the petitioner/accused rushed there by car, took the deceased with him to somewhere and later the petitioner/ accused contacted the father of the deceased at 00.52 a.m. and informed that the deceased received injuries due to road accident at Nagamallithota junction. The younger brother of the deceased enquired and confirmed that no accident took place at Nagamallithota junction. Meanwhile, the petitioner/ accused contacted the brother of the deceased and informed that he was taking the deceased to Amrutha Hospital at Janma Bhoomi Park, Kakinada and immediately the brother of the deceased along with some others rushed to Amrutha Hospital and noticed the deceased in the car and duty doctor examined and declared the deceased as dead and later the accused took the dead body of the deceased to Sri Rama Bageechi Enclave Apartment and informed that the deceased died due to injuries received by him in a bike accident and directed the parents of the deceased to cremate the dead body by taking to their native place and offered an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, when they 3 questioned him, the petitioner/accused abused them on their caste and threatened them with dire consequences and went away leaving the dead body of the deceased in his car. The report of mother of the deceased was registered as Cr.No.195 of 2022 under Section 174 CrPC (suspicious death). Later inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and as per the opinion of panchayatdars, the section of law was altered to 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016 (for short, 'the Act').
3. Smt. Veedi Nooka Ratnam, mother of the deceased, got filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 under section 15A of the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act, read with Section 482 of CrPC to implead her as respondent No.2 to this Criminal Petition. The same was allowed and she was permitted to come on record as the respondent No.2.
4. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, for Ms.P.Anitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1 st respondent- 4 state and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, for Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/vicim.
5. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, in elaboration, would submit that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence and except the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner/accused said to have been recorded by the police during his custodial interrogation, which is inadmissible in evidence, no other material is available on record to connect the accused with this crime. The confessional statement of the accused, even if it is taken on its face value, does not disclose any offence much less the offences alleged, more particularly section 302 IPC.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the contents of the charge sheet as well as the alleged confessional statement of the accused do not show any motive on the part of the petitioner for commission of the offence.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that while considering the question of grant of bail, court should avoid consideration of details of the evidence and exhaustive 5 exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided. He would further submit that entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been laid and thus there is no possibility of either tampering the prosecution evidence or hampering the process of investigation, in case the petitioner is released on bail. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and that refusal to bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. He would further submit that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 23.05.2022 and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required that too after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that, earlier, Crl.M.P.No.1351 of 2022 got filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by the Special Sessions Judge on 30.08.2022 without giving proper reasons.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that since mother of the petitioner died, the petitioner was granted interim 6 bail by this Court and the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court and after completion of the interim bail period he has surrendered himself as directed by this Court.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at the trial and the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen hails from a reputed family commanding good respect and he is a Member of Legislative counsel and thus there is no reason to apprehend that he would either flee away from justice or threaten the witnesses. He would further submit that the petitioner would abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.
In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on (1) Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 (2) Seema Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation2 and (3) Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another3.
1 . (2012) 1 SCC 40 2 . (2018) 16 SCC 10 3 . (2018) 12 SCC 129 7 On the above contentions, the learned senior counsel prays to allow this Criminal Petition and grant bail to the petitioner/ accused.
6. Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and placed on record the post-mortem report of the deceased and the details of cases registered against the accused and the proceedings of the closure of rowdy sheet of the accused. He would submit that investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed in so far as the petitioner is concerned, however, possibility of involvement of other persons in this case has to be unearthed and as of now there are no direct eyewitnesses to the occurrence except the circumstantial evidence and the investigating agency is thriving hard to secure evidence regarding involvement of others in this crime and thus, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and pendency of investigation regarding involvement of others, it is not desirable to release the petitioner/ accused on bail. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent/victim, would submit that the relevant 8 consideration while granting bail are (i) nature or seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the postmortem report of the deceased clearly establishes that the petitioner had beaten the deceased to death causing as many as 31 external injuries and three (03) internal injuries, which are ante- mortem, leaving no part of the body of deceased uninjured. Further, the petitioner, after committing murder, tried to screen away the evidence by removing the dead body from the place of occurrence by his car and he tried to stage-manage as if the deceased died due to the injuries received in an accident and when the family members of the deceased did not believe the same and questioned him, the petitioner threatened the family members of the deceased to cremate the dead body immediately luring them with payment of money. The post crime conduct of 9 the petitioner/accused would demonstrate his cruel nature and that he can go to any extent to manage the things.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the petitioner confessed that when he pushed the deceased, the deceased fell down and died all of a sudden and out of fear, he caused injuries on the dead body by beating it with a stick to make it appear that the deceased died in an accident. whereas, the postmortem certificate of the deceased reveals that all the injuries found on the dead body are ante-mortem in nature. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner with an intention to eliminate the deceased beaten him to death.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court to perform obsequies and to discharge last rights of his deceased mother and during that period so many politicians of the ruling party met him and had consultations with him and this indicates that if the petitioner is granted bail, he would resort to nefarious means and would mount immense pressure on the prosecution witnesses to wriggle out of case.
10
The learned senior counsel would further submit that as many as 17 cases were registered against the petitioner and that within a few months after his party came into power he got removed the rowdy sheet against him and this shows the influence he has in the Government as well as with the police and thus, if the petitioner is released, there is every likelihood of his threatening the witnesses from deposing against him. He would further submit that filing of charge sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations rather it establishes that after due investigation prosecution has filed charge sheet for trial of the petitioner/accused, thus completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet in no way be taken as a ground to grant bail that too in a heinous crime of killing.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the application got filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the witnesses and the family members of the deceased might be the next victims in the hands of the petitioner/accused.
11
The learned senior counsel would further submit that mother and sister of the petitioner/accused abused the paternal uncle of the deceased and threatened him that they would do away with his life after release of the petitioner from jail and in that regard the paternal uncle of the deceased gave report to II Town L&O Police Station, Kakinada. Thus, if the petitioner is granted bail, the lives of the witnesses and family members of the deceased would be at peril.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that while granting bail though the period of custody has to be considered, but it should be weighed with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents of the accused. In the case on hand, though the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than 120 days, his involvement in more than 17 cases apart from this case cannot be lost sight of.
In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied on Sunil Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another4, Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another5, Virupakshappa Gouda and another vs. State of Karnataka 4 . (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 245 5 . (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 781 12 and another6, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another7, Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and another8 and orders passed by a coordinate bench of this Court9.
On the above contentions, the learned senior counsel opposed bail to the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. In reply to the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for victim and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor regarding involvement of the petitioner in 17 other crimes, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in 17 cases prior to the year 2015 and out of those, 16 cases were either ended in acquittal or referred as false by the prosecution and in another case, this Court granted stay in quash proceedings. Thus, it is evident that all the cases have been foisted against the petitioner out of political animosity. He would further submit that the Rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner was closed in the year 6 . (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406 7 . (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496, 8 . (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 9 . Orders dated 01.08.2022 in Criminal petition Nos. 1904 of 2022 & batch 13 2019. Thus, the apprehensions ventilated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the victim in this regard are not true. With regard to politicians meeting the petitioner is concerned, they met the petitioner to express their condolence on account of death of his mother. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the victim and the learned Additional Advocate General are not tenable.
9. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portions relied on by the learned counsel in support of their respective contentions.
10. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which have 14 resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of justice".
xxxxxxxx
25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.
26. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) 2 SCC 42 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 489] observed that : (SCC p. 52, para 18) "18. ... Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case, there is need to release such [accused] on bail, where fact situations require it to do so." 15
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
28. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand [(1977) 4 SCC 308 :
1977 SCC (Cri) 594] this Court opined : (SCC pp. 308-09, paras 2-
3) "2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight."
11. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others relied on the learned counsel for the petitioner, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"11. The order of the High Court shows that in coming to the conclusion that Respondent 2 was entitled to bail, pending trial, the following factors weighed with it:16
11.1. Videography of the post-mortem was not done.
11.2. After the alleged accident, Respondent 2 had informed about the same to the family members of the deceased. On receiving this information, mother of the deceased had arrived and post-mortem was done in her presence and other family members. At that time, certain doctors who were close and well-
known to the family of the deceased were also present at the spot and they had taken certain photographs of the body before the post-mortem was done. At that time, none of these persons raised any objection with regard to the videography of the post- mortem not being done. They did not demand second post- mortem either in case they had suspicion.
11.3. Insofar as the report of AIIMS is concerned, it is solely based on photographs which were provided to the panel of doctors and, thus, doctors never conducted any post-mortem on the body of the deceased.
11.4. There is no eyewitness account which may show that the girl was either tortured or threatened on the way or she was injured, though vague allegations have been made in this behalf but without any supporting documents.
11.5. After investigation, the charge-sheet had been filed by CBI. The main crux of the charge-sheet is only the documentary evidence and not any eyewitness account. Documentary evidence is already available with CBI. Therefore, there is no possible apprehension of Respondent 2 in either hampering with the investigation or tampering with the evidence or threatening anybody in case he is released on bail.
11.6. There is no likelihood of the accused absconding as well."
12. In Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: 17
15. As held in Puran case [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] , while considering the question of grant of bail, court should avoid consideration of details of the evidence as it is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided. We, therefore, consciously refrain from considering the merits of the materials/evidence collected by the prosecution.
xxxxxxxxxx
18. While considering the basic requirements for grant of bail, in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] , this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 31, para 18) "18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (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 charge; (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 tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) '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 18 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. 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. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)'"
13. In Sunil Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another relied on by the learned senior counsel for the victim, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
15. Even otherwise the High Court has erred in not considering the material relevant to the determination of whether the accused was to be enlarged on bail. The High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant considerations for grant of bail. In Anil Kumar Yadav [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425] , it is observed and held by this Court that while granting bail, the relevant considerations are:
(i) nature of seriousness of the offence;
(ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and
(iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;19
(iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and
(v) likelihood of his tampering.
xxxxxxxxxxx
17. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422 : (2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 647] , after referring to a catena of judgments of this Court on the considerations to be placed at balance while deciding to grant bail, it is observed in paras 15 and 18 as under : (SCC pp. 429-
30) "15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.
***
18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as many relevant factors have not been taken into consideration which includes the criminal antecedents of the accused and that makes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is the lancination of the impugned order [Budhpal v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 14815] ."
14. In Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, relied on by the learned counsel for the victim their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
8. This Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] held that when a stand was taken that the accused was a 20 history-sheeter, it was imperative for the High Courts to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the accused was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
9. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172] , this Court observed that when citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life and heinous offences were obstructions in the establishment of a well-ordered society, the courts play an even more important role, and the burden is heavy. It emphasised on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminal antecedents of the accused.
10. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] , it was held that this Court ordinarily would not interfere with a High Court's order granting or rejecting bail to an accused. Nonetheless, it was equally imperative for the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the ratio set by a catena of decisions of this Court. The factors laid down in the judgment were:
(i) Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
and
(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
11. There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail.
15. In Virupakshappa Gouda and another vs. State of Karnataka and another relied on by the learned senior counsel 21 for the victim, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"12. 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 [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] , especially in para 86, the relevant part of which reads thus : (SCC p. 729) "86. ... The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-à-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."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
15. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974] 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 v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] , 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 : (SCC p. 499, para 9) "9. ... among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;22
(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."
16. In CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563] , the Court had reiterated the principle by observing thus : (SCC p. 465, para 34) "34. 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 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."
(emphasis in original)
17. 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 v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed : (SCC pp. 514-15, para 16) "16. The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the second respondent? We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of the constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights 23 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 civilised society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilised. 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 its members, 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."
16. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another relied on the learned senior counsel for the victim, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"11. 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."24
17. In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and another, relied on the learned senior counsel for the victim, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"15. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to certain authorities which lay down the considerations that should weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences. This Court in State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 215 : (1962) 3 SCR 622] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] has held that the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case are to be considered. The said principles have been reiterated in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. [(2005) 2 SCC 13 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 481]
16. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 674] this Court has culled out the principles to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail. In that context, the two- Judge Bench has stated that: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) "8. ... While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the 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 it (sic 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 25 of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
18. Recently, in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [(2012) 9 SCC 446 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172 : JT (2012) 9 SC 155] this Court while dealing with individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has opined as under: (SCC p. 454, para 18) "18. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires."
19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, and no one would like to barter it for all the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part of the court to scan and scrutinise, though briefly, as regards the prima facie case, the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the potentiality of the accused to tamper with the evidence apart from other aspects before the restriction on liberty is lifted on imposition of certain conditions."
18. The learned senior counsel for the victim relied paras-17 and 31 and they are extracted hereunder:
"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 26 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.
"31...... 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."
19. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding refusal or grant of bail, now the facts of the case have to be looked into.
20. Perused the First Information Report, Charge sheet and the material placed on record and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 27
21. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are:
(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 charge;
(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 tampered with; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
22. It is an established principle of law, "object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail and the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon". It is also an established principle of law, "while considering the question of grant of bail, court should avoid consideration of 28 details of the evidence as it is not a relevant consideration". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and that refusal to bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
23. According to the petitioner, there is no eyewitness account and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the confessional statement of the petitioner said to have been recorded by the police. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.05.2022. The entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been laid.
24. It is no doubt a settled principle of law that court should avoid consideration of details of the evidence and exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided. However, while granting bail the Court is duty bound to see whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence, nature and gravity of the charge and severity of the punishment in the event of conviction.
29
25. A perusal of the post-mortem report, which is placed on record, would disclose that as many as 31 antemortem injuries and three (03) internal injuries were found on the deceased suggesting that the deceased was beaten severely to death. The contents of the charge sheet would disclose that the dead body of the deceased was found in the car of the deceased and that the petitioner informed the parents of the deceased that the deceased met with an accident and died and when they disbelieved his version and questioned him, the petitioner offered them Rs.2,00,000/- and asked them to take the dead body to their village and cremate and when they refused, he threatened them with dire consequences. Thus, the record discloses that prima facie the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded.
26. Though charge sheet has been laid, it is settled law that mere filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution and 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. Hence, 30 completion of investigation cannot at all be taken as a mitigating circumstance to grant bail.
27. It is also appropriate here to note that the learned Special Sessions Judge while dismissing bail application got filed by the petitioner observed that relatives of the petitioner threatened the paternal uncle of the deceased that the petitioner would do away with his life after release of the petitioner. Thus there is reasonable apprehension to the lives of the family members of the deceased, in the event the petitioner is released on bail.
28. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.05.2022. 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 potential threat to the life and liberty of the victim/witnesses. In view of the post crime conduct of the petitioner as well as his relatives in threatening the witnesses, as could be perceived from the order of the Special Sessions Judge, there is potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if the petitioner is released on bail. 31
29. The judgments relied on by both the senior counsel are no doubt settled principles of law. However, each case has to be dealt with independently based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The offence alleged in this case is heinous. The record prima facie discloses that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. Considering the social status of the petitioner as MLC of the ruling party and in view of post crime conduct of the petitioner/accused and his relatives, this Court finds force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim that there is threat to life and liberty of witnesses. Apart from these, according to the prosecution, investigating agency is thriving hard to find out involvement of other accused in this crime. In view of these, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
30. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 12.10.2022 RR 32 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DISMISSED CRIMINAL PETITION No.6907 OF 2022 Date : 12.10.2022 U RR