Telangana High Court
Macharla Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana on 9 November, 2020
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2583 OF 2020
ORDER:
This is an application for regular bail. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in S.C. No.131 of 2019 pending on the file of Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 302, 201, 414, 498-A and 109 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 2015.
2. In the charge sheet, the Police have stated that the investigation conducted by them would reveal that the petitioner got acquainted with deceased No.1 in the year 2009. They fell in love. In the year 2015, after completing M.Tech., the petitioner was taking coaching for GATE examination and deceased No.1 also came down to Uppal to work as Chemist in a medical shop after completing her M- Phamacy at Hanmakonda. During the said time, the petitioner expressed his willingness to perform marriage with deceased No.1, who has readily agreed. Accordingly, they got married on 21.11.2016 and it is a love and inter-caste marriage. Thereafter, they started leading their conjugal life in a rented room at Erragadda, Hyderabad without informing the said fact to the parents of both the petitioner and deceased No.1.
2 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020
3. It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that in the year 2016, when A-2 and A-3, parents of the petitioner/A-1, called him, he went to his native village. A-2 and A-3 brought marriage alliance to the petitioner. Knowing about the same, deceased No.1 quarreled with A-1 and also informed her mother (L.W.6) about their marriage, who in turn, informed to A-2 and A-3 by showing marriage photos. Thus, there are disputes between the petitioner and deceased No.1. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that the petitioner belongs to Padmashali community and deceased No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Deceased No.1 suspected that the petitioner will perform another marriage and forced him to take her to matrimonial house, due to which, there were quarrels between the petitioner and deceased No.1. Then the petitioner left deceased No.1 and went to Mahaboobnagar and Vikarabad and started working in Solar Company. Deceased No.1 went to her mother L.W.6. After sometime, the petitioner joined deceased No.1.
The parents of the petitioner have objected for the same and informed the petitioner - accused No.1 not to bring deceased No.1 to their village. Whereas, deceased No.1 continuously insisted the petitioner to take her to his native village. The petitioner herein has refused to take her to his native village. Thereafter, they have blessed with a male child. Accused No.1 visited deceased No.1 only once and thereafter, he did not visit deceased No.1 despite her specific 3 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 request. Thus, there are disputes between the petitioner and deceased No.1. Panchayats were also held. During the said panchayats, A-1 to A-3 did not agree to take deceased No.1 and her son, deceased No.2, to their house, instead they have demanded to give divorce to the petitioner. On 30.01.2019, deceased No.1 and L.W.6 went to Ghanapur village for casting their vote in Gram Panchayat elections, where A-4 humiliated deceased No.1 on her caste name before L.Ws.6, 10 and 11. Due to the said disputes between the petitioner and deceased No.1, the petitioner planned to eliminate his wife and marry another girl of his community. On 09.02.2019, he called deceased No.1 asking her to come down to Hyderabad. On that L.W.9 dropped deceased Nos.1 and 2 at Uppal X roads from where the petitioner took her on his motorcycle initially to Ghanapur where deceased No.1 threatened him to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills if she is not allowed to stay with him and consumed two sleeping pills. At about 9.00 pm., when deceased No.1 went into unconscious condition, he thought that it is the correct time and took her to the forest area existing backside of HPCL, throttled her neck and killed her. After confirming that she died, in the same manner, he killed his son also and confirming that both died, he got relieved the ornaments from deceased No.1. In order to cause their bodies beyond recognizance, he went to HP Petrol Pump, brought petrol, poured on his wife and son (deceased Nos.1 and 2) and burnt them beyond recognizance. Thus, the petitioner has committed the offence.
4 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020
4. Heard Sri P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
5. It is a double murder case. The petitioner has killed his wife and minor son in the manner stated above. In the charge sheet, prima facie, there are specific overt-acts against the petitioner herein. The crime which he has committed is a heinous crime. The petitioner tried to cause disappearance of evidence by pouring petrol on the dead bodies of his wife and minor son. Thus, he has committed a serious offence.
6. It is trite to note that the petitioner has filed bail applications vide Crl.P.Nos.3526 of 2019 and 5666 of 2019 and the same were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 05.07.2019 and 18.09.2019. In the order dated 18.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.5666 of 2019, this Court has also specifically mentioned the accusations against the petitioner/A-1 and also the manner of committing the offence by him. As stated above, it is a double murder case and the petitioner, in order to get rid of his wife, took her to an isolated place and killed her. He has also killed his minor son. Thus, there are specific overt-acts against the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court has dismissed earlier bail applications by considering the same. This Court also dismissed the third bail application vide Crl.P.N.2115 of 2020 vide order dated 05.06.2020.
5 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020
7. In view of the same, the only circumstance of change urged by the petitioner/A-1 is that this Court in the order dated 18.09.2019 in Crl.P.No.5666 of 2019, directed the trial Court to expedite hearing of the case and conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either parties, since charge sheet was filed in the said case. By referring the same, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though there is a specific direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within six months, the trial Court did not even commence the trial. Thus, there is change of circumstance to file the present application. He would further submit that the Police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, which was taken on file by the trial Court vide S.C.No.131 of 2019. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in jail. His fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be affected. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to consider the bail application of the petitioner by imposing some conditions.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that considering the nature of offence and also manner in which the petitioner had committed the offence, the Government have appointed Sri V.Raghunath, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor to 6 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 conduct trial. Accordingly, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.1484, Home (Courts.A) Department, dated 18.12.2019. Accused No.3 has filed W.P.No.192 of 2020 challenging the appointment of said Special Public Prosectuor vide G.O.Rt.No.1484 and this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.192 of 2020, granted interim suspension of the said GO. He would further submit that it is A-3, mother of A-1, who has filed the said Writ Petition challenging the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, as such, the accused are not cooperating in concluding the trial. Therefore, they cannot blame the trial Court that it has not concluded the trial as per the order dated 18.09.2019 in Crl.P.No.5666 of 2019. He would further submit that in view of the stay granted by this Court in the above said Writ Petition, the regular Public Prosecutor of the trial Court filed a memo stating that he is ready to conduct the trial and got instructions with regard to the same. With the said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no fault on the part of the prosecution and also the trial Court in not concluding the trial.
9. The above stated facts would reveal that the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1484, Home (Courts.A) Department, dated 18.12.2019, appointed a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial in the present case. The same was challenged by A-3 and this Court has granted interim suspension of the said GO. Thus, there is no fault either on 7 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 the part of the prosecution or the trial Court in concluding the trial. In view of the same, the changed circumstance contended by the petitioner is of no use and the same is unsustainable.
10. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia1, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J., speaking for the Court, discussed with regard to the power of granting bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and held that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is of a wide amplitude. Though the grant of bail involves the exercise of discretionary power of the Court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In the said case, the guiding factors for exercise of power to grant bail as held in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh2, were referred, which are as follows:
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case...The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.
4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:1
. (2020) 2 SCC 118 2 . (2002) 3 SCC 598 8 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be (2002) 3 SCC 598 considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the Accused is entitled to an order of bail."
11. It was further held in the very same judgment that the determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the Accused are important. No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the Accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the Accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where 9 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee3, and the said factors are as follows:
"(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.
...
12. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non- application of mind, rendering it to be illegal..."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to the principles laid down by it in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. 3 . (2010) 14 SCC 496 10 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 Rajesh Ranjan4, wherein it was held that 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 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.
14. By referring to the above said judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of the Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion. 4 . (2004) 7 SCC 528 11 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020
15. In Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi5, the Apex Court by relying upon various judgments held that for ensuring the fair trial, witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that a fair trial can be ensured only if the appellants are not enlarged on bail. The gravity of offence and the manner of commission of offence by the accused has to be looked into while considering the bail application of the accused.
16. In State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajbalah Yadav6, the Apex Court held that as under:
"26. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent is only an undertrial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration. However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair trial of the case. Thus, undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of the accused persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice-delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice-delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations. After all, if there is a threat to fair trial because of intimidation of witnesses, etc., that would happen because of wrongdoing of the accused himself, and the consequences thereof.5
AIR 2017 SC2 5398 6 (2017) 2 SCC 178 12 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 After referring to various case laws and observing that in a criminal trial, witnesses must be able to depose without fear, freely and truthfully, in Raballav Prasad case, this Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused thereon and held as under:
" As indicated by us in the beginning, prime consideration before us is to protect the fair trial and ensure that justice is done. This may happen only if the witnesses are able to depose without fear, freely and truthfully and this Court is convinced that in the present case, that can be ensured only if the respondent is not enlarged on bail. This importance of fair trial was emphasized in Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra {(2005) 3 SCC 143} while setting aside the order of the High Court granting bail to the accused thereon. In the said judgment, it is mentioned that the object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampring with the evidence in the heinous crime and if there is delay in such a case the underlying object of cancellation of bail practically loses all its purpose and significance to the greatest prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation."
17. In Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. The State of Karnataka7, the Apex Court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be 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 7 2017 (1) ALD (Crl) 1028 SC 13 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 found guilty. It was further held that every bail application has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and also considering the material available on record. In the case, the offence leveled against the accused are under Sections 420-B, 468, 471 and 109 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The factual matrix was quite different therein, whereas in the present case, the offence leveled against the petitioner/A-1 is under Section 302 of IPC and it is double murder case. It depends upon the nature of crime and the manner in which the offence was committed. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of the factual score and understanding of the pronouncements in the field.
18. In Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P.8, the Apex Court has laid down certain requisite facts for consideration of bail i.e.,
(i) 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.
19. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy9, the Apex Court has reiterated the principle by observing as follows:
"while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support 8 (2004) 7 SCC 525 9 (2013) 7 SCC 452 14 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 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."
20. The Apex Court by referring to the principle held by its in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh10, held that it is clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner.
21. A three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Dinesh M.N. (S.P) Vs. State of Gujarat11, held that where the Court admits the accused to bail by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and keeping out of consideration the relevant materials the order becomes vulnerable and such vulnerability warrants annulment of the order. 10
(2014) 16 SCC 508 11 (2009) 5 SCC 66 15 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020
22. In view of the above stated authoritative pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, it is a double murder case. The petitioner has killed his wife and minor son in the manner stated above. There are specific overt acts against the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein took her wife (deceased No.1) and his minor son (deceased No.2) to a forest area, throttled her neck and killed her. After confirming that his wife died, in the very same manner, he killed his son. He got petrol and poured on his wife and son and burnt them. Thus, he has killed his wife and minor son. He has tried to cause disappearance of the evidence by pouring petrol on the dead bodies of his wife and minor son.
23. As discussed supra, this Court has dismissed the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner - accused No.1. This Court vide order dated 18.09.2019 in Crl.P. No.5666 of 2019, directed the trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. As discussed supra, considering the nature of offence, manner of committing the offence by the petitioner - accused No.1, the Government has appointed a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct trial in the matter. Accordingly, the Government has issued a G.O. Accused No.3, mother of accused No.1, challenged the said G.O. with regard to appointment of Special Public Prosecutor. This Court has granted interim stay of the said G.O. Thereafter, the petitioner - accused No.1 16 KL,J Crl.P.No.2583_2020 cannot throw blame either on prosecution or on trial Court stating trial is not concluded in six months despite direction of this Court in Crl.P. No.5666 of 2019, dated 18.09.2019.
24. However, in view of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.5666 of 2019, dated 18.09.2019, a regular Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has filed a memo expressing his readiness to proceed with trial.
25. In view of the above stated discussion and also considering the above stated facts, the offence committed by the petitioner - accused No.1 is a heinous crime and there are no changed circumstances from 18.09.2019 till date. Thus, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner
- accused No.1 herein and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed by following the SOP issued by this Court from time to time in view of COVID-19 pandemic situation.
26. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial in compliance of the order dated 18.09.2019 in Crl.P. No.5666 of 2019.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 09.11.2020 TJMR/Mgr