Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Prdesh on 1 February, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.40 of 2022
ORDER:-
This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioners/A3 in connection with Crime No.RC-
4(S)/2020/CBI/SC.III/ND on the file of Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI, New Delhi-110-003.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.2019 in the early hours at about 5:30 A.M., M.V.Krishna Reddy, who is working as Personal Assistant under Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy i.e. the deceased, went to the house of deceased, but by that time deceased did not wake up. After reading newspaper for half an hour he made a phone call to Smt. Y.S.Sowbhagyamma, wife of the deceased and asked her whether he can wake up the deceased, but she instructed him not to wake him. After half an hour, when cook Lakshmi and her son Prakash came he asked Lakshmi to wake up the deceased otherwise he would shout at him for the delay. It is also stated in the complaint that despite her repeated calling there was no response from the deceased, as such the complainant went and called him but there was no response from the deceased. In the meantime, watchman Rangaiah came and informed that side door was found opened. Then the complainant and Prakash went inside and saw that bedroom door was also open. They found two liters of blood in the bedroom but the deceased was not there. They found the deceased in the bathroom lying on the floor in a pool of blood and noticed injuries on forehead, back of the head and on palm of the deceased. The complainant informed the same to the wife and son-in- 2 law of the deceased. Basing on the said report, initially crime No.84/2019 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and subsequently Section of law was altered to 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
3. Subsequently as per the common order dated 11.03.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3944, 3945, 20224, 21410 of 2019 and W.P.No.1639 of 2020, crime No.84 of 2019 was handed over to CBI, New Delhi and the same was registered as FIR No.Rc.No.04(S)/2020/SC-III/ND for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
4. Petitioner was apprehended by Police, Calangute Police Station, Goa on the ground that there is evidence to establish the role of petitioner and he was produced before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mapusa, North Goa and vide order dated 02.08.2021 transit remand was granted for a period of two days with a direction to produce him before jurisdictional Court at Pulivendula, Kadapa District on or before 04.08.2021. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, by order dated 04.08.2021, remanded the petitioner to judicial custody for a period of fourteen days and petitioner's custody was granted to CBI for a period of 10 days i.e. from 06.08.2021 from 3:00 P.M. to 16.08.2021 till 3:00 P.M. The present petition is filed seeking regular bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated by the Police.
5. Prosecution has filed counter stating that subsequent to filing of the complaint, evidences were destroyed deliberately by cleaning up of the scene of crime, lifting of the body from bathroom to bedroom, bandaging the injury of deceased with the help of private compounders and nurses, removal of a note alleged to be written by deceased from 3 the SOC and in this regard three persons including personal assistant of the deceased were arrested. It is further stated that as per the common order dated 11.03.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3944, 3945, 20224, 21410 of 2019 and W.P.No.1639 of 2020, crime No.84 of 2019 CBI started investigation and during the course of investigation, oral and documentary evidence came on record which established the role of petitioner. Though efforts were made to secure presence of the petitioner, he did not cooperate with investigation and remained absconding. It is stated that during the course of investigation, the role of petitioner was revealed in the murder of the deceased and the statement of watchman of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. disclosed the role of petitioner and petitioner was evading investigation.
6. Petitioner was apprehended by Police, Calangute Police Station, Goa on the ground that there is evidence to establish the role of petitioner and he was produced before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mapusa, North Goa and vide order dated 02.08.2021 transit remand was granted for a period of two days with a direction to produce him before jurisdictional Court at Pulivendula, Kadapa District on or before 04.08.2021. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, by order dated 04.08.2021, remanded the petitioner to judicial custody for a period of fourteen days and petitioner's custody was granted to CBI for a period of 10 days i.e. from 06.08.2021 from 3:00 P.M. to 16.08.2021 till 3:00 P.M. As the investigation is at crucial stage and the petitioner remained absconding, he is not entitled for bail.
4
7. Heard Sri T.L.Nayan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Chenna Keshavulu learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when petitioner personally appeared before CBI on 08.03.2021, he was subjected to torture and he was threatened to accept the crime. He submits that CBI Police have conducted lie detector test and took petitioner's signatures on blank papers. He submits that Police have violated Section 160 Cr.P.C. which says that Police have to enquire any person at the place of witness or to the adjacent Police Station, whereas CBI Police called the petitioner to New Delhi and did not pay conveyance which is mandatory as per Section 160(2) Cr.P.C. He submits that as petitioner was subjected to third degree petitioner filed W.P.No.14257 of 2021, as such CBI Police bore grudge against him and called former watchman of the deceased and produced him before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu for recoding his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that CBI Police did not serve copy of Police custody petition under Section 167 Cr.P.C. to the counsel on record in High Court or his family members to defend himself and thereby they deliberately deprived the right of petitioner to defend himself. He submits that the petitioner is innocent and only to save the rich and influenced persons and to implicate petitioner, he was taken into custody leaving the suspects as listed by daughter of the deceased. Hence, his case may be considered for grant of bail.
9. On the other hand, learned Special Pubic Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition with vague and false allegations. He submits that CBI Police have never used third degree and all the suspects who were summoned to New Delhi for 5 investigation were provided with timely food, snacks and rest room facilities. He submits that petitioner voluntarily gave his specimen signatures and his email was accessed by CBI Police with petitioner's free consent and there is no threat by CBI Police. He further submits that there is clear evidence against the petitioner and as he was absconding and failed to co-operate, he is not entitled for bail at this stage. He submits that the investigation is at crucial stage and there is every likelihood of petitioner hampering with the investigation and tampering with material evidence. It is submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged, there is every likelihood of threat, he may abscond, influence the witnesses and hamper with the investigation process. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
10. Heard both sides and perused the record.
11. While considering the bail applications, detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is not required to be looked into. Yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima-facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The grant or rejection of bail is only to be considered basing on the facts and circumstances of each case. If there is any technicality, it can be considered at the time of trial, not at the time of considering the bail application. Therefore, basing on the gravity and seriousness of the case, the court below has rightly rejected the bail application of the petitioner.
12. Petitioner is an accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and this case was handed over to CBI as per the order of this Court. It is submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage. Taking into 6 consideration the submission of learned standing counsel for CBI and the previous conduct of the accused in evading to appear before the police, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 01.02.2022 RD 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.40 of 2022 01.02.2022 RD