Telangana High Court
Guduru Yugender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 6 March, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1547 of 2024
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - A1 under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge him on bail in S.C.No.5 of 2021 on the file of IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (Crime No.592 of 2020 of PS Gachibowli, Cyberabad), registered for the offences under Sections 120-B(1), 302, 364, 379, 448, 449, 341, 342, 352, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. This is a case of honor killing, wherein it was alleged that A2, the father of de-facto complainant (LW.1) conspired to commit murder of his son-in-law who belonged to another caste, who married his daughter against his will and wish. A1 was alleged to be the brother-in-law of A2 and planned along with A2 and A3, the parents of the de-facto complainant and his other relatives A8, A9, A10 and A12 to A17 to commit the offence and hired the assassins A5 to A7 to execute the plan. They failed in their attempts twice.
3. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the Police was that in their third attempt on 24.09.2020, A1 started from the residence of A2 and A3 in his white color Maruthi Swift car bearing No.TS-08-ET-3031 to TNGO Colony where the de-facto complainant and her husband, the newly 2 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 married young couple were residing in a rented house and asked A5 to A7 to come to TNGO Colony and wait in between the TNGO Colony and Gopanpally "X" Roads till they bring the deceased to the above place. A7, A8 and A9 went to the TNGO Colony in a white color I-20 car bearing No.TS-07-EV-1449. A12 to A16 went in a red color Maruthi Breeza car bearing No.TS-15-EX-9781. A2 and A10 went to TNGO Colony by motorcycle Honda Shine bearing No.AP-28-DF-1449. A2 dropped A10 at TNGO Colony at a distance and came back to his house at Lingampally and was co-ordinating with the other accused for the successful execution of the plan. After reaching the rental house of the deceased and LW.1 at TNGO Colony, the accused A8 to A10 and A12 to A16 entered into the house and asked them to come along with them to negotiate with the parents of LW.1 i.e. A2 and A3 for discussing about their marriage. LW.1 and the deceased did not agree suspecting some foul play and refused to go along with them. After prolonged persuasion, the accused felt that they would not come voluntarily, as such, dragged the deceased and LW.1 from the house and made them to sit in the I-20 car. A17 drove the said car in which A9 sat in the front seat, whereas A8 sat beside LW.1 and the deceased in the rear seat. The remaining accused A10 to A16 went by red color Breeza car following I-20 car. The accused A1 also followed I-20 car and Breeza car and while going towards Gopanpally "X" Roads picked up A5, A6 and A7 before Gopanpally "X" Roads en-route. The deceased made a call to his father 3 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 intimating about his abduction. Upon that, LWs.2 and 3, the parents of the deceased started to TNGO Colony to know about abduction. The deceased also made a call to LW.4 and asked her to lock their house since they were being taken by the accused. On which, LW.4 went and locked the house of LW.1 and the deceased. When the I-20 car reached Gopanpally "X" Roads, it took left turn towards Outer Ring Road (ORR) instead of right turn i.e. towards Lingampally. As such, LW.1 and the deceased got suspicion and got down from the I-20 car and made efforts to escape by getting into an Auto with the help of LW.8, who was present on the roadside. The accused A5, A6 and A9 caught hold the deceased and dragged him into A1's white Maruthi Swift car bearing No.TS-08-ET-3031 and A1, A5 to A7 took him towards ORR. In the meantime, the accused A10 contacted A2 by phone and informed about the deceased being abducted and taken in the white Swift car and proceeded to ORR side and that LW.1 was resisting to accompany the remaining accused present there to Lingampally. A2 instructed LW.10 to push LW.1 into the car and get her to Lingampally. The accused A1, A5, A6 and A7 took the deceased towards ORR and accused A7, who was sitting in the front seat of the car, got down before VattiNagulapally Village and went towards his house. A1, A5 and A6 along with the deceased proceeded in the Swift car to Raikode Mandal through Patancheru, Sanga Reddy, Sadashivpet and en-route they got filled fuel in the Swift Car at Isnapur Filling Station, Muttangi. A1 purchased jute rope in 4 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 SRR Traders Shop at Chimnapur Village of Raikode Mandal to murder the deceased by strangulation. A1, A5 and A6 along with the deceased further went to Raikode Mandal and purchased liquor from New Bhavani Wine shop. A1 purchased some Mixture and water bottles in Ramchander Balaji Sweet Shop for their personal consumption while consuming the liquor. A1, A5 and A6 consumed the liquor and tried to convince the deceased to leave LW.1 and threatened to kill him if he would not leave her. But the deceased refused to leave LW.1. On which, A5 and A6 tied the hands and legs of the deceased with the jute rope, which was purchased by A1. A1 drove the Swift car towards open plots in Kistaigudem Village before Sangareddy Town and pulled out the deceased from the car. A1 and A5 strangulated the deceased with the jute rope, while A6 caught hold the deceased. They committed theft of the mobile phone and gold ornaments i.e. bracelet and gold chain from the person of the body of the deceased. The mobile was taken by A1, whereas A5 had taken away gold bracelet and gold chain. They threw the dead body into nearby herbs and returned back to Patancheru. A1 telephoned and called LW27 and asked him to come to Patancheru / Yellamma Temple along with LW28 and to bring Rs.30,000/-, which was owed to A1 by LW27. LW27 gave the said amount of Rs.30,000/- to A1. A1 in turn gave Rs.20,000/ - to A5. A1 further asked LW27 to drop A5 at Kolluru Village. LW27 dropped A5 at Kolluru on his vehicle and returned back to Patancheru and met A1. A1 informed LW27 and LW28 about 5 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 committing murder of the deceased. LW27 and LW28 immediately left the place and went to their homes. A1 and A6 in order to escape left Patancheru and proceeded to Ravalkole Village to the house of A18 through ORR. When they were proceeding to Ravalkole Village, A1 informed A18 that they committed murder of the deceased and coming to his house to take shelter. A18 agreed to give shelter and harbored A1 and A6 in his house.
4. A1 was arrested on 25.09.2020 and remanded to judicial custody on 26.09.2020.
5. The Police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet, which was taken cognizance by the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar. A Special Fast Track Court was constituted for trial of the case. As many as 32 witnesses were examined till date.
6. Heard Sri D.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Gowtham, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were no eye- witnesses to the alleged incident. Only basing on the circumstantial evidence, the Police implicated the petitioner / A1. The petitioner did not have any criminal antecedents. There was no threat of tampering the evidence or 6 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 influencing / intimidating the witnesses. This Court enlarged all the accused persons on bail. Except A1, A4, A5 and A6, all others were released. The main conspirator A2, the father of the de-facto complainant was also granted bail as per the order dated 14.07.2023 in Criminal Petition No.6167 of 2023. The petitioner was in jail since more than three years. Keeping him in jail even after the release of all other accused was nothing but violation of his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated several times that the confession made before the Police was not admissible in evidence and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan and Another 1 wherein on considering the facts of the case that the petitioner was in custody for more than 14 months and the crucial witnesses were examined and as there was no likelihood of tampering with the evidence and the witnesses were close family members of both sides, as such, there was no likelihood of winning over the witnesses, granted bail.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner / A1 was the maternal uncle of the de-facto complainant and brother of A3. As per the complainant and eye-witnesses, A1 was the main person who kidnapped the deceased forcibly when they were trying to escape. A1 along with A5, A6 and A7 kidnapped the deceased from Gopanpally X Roads. The same was revealed 1 MANU/SCOR/22572/2023 7 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 by other witnesses LWs 2 and 3. The CCTV footage collected from Gopanpally "X" Roads from a medical shop would clearly show the involvement of A1 in the kidnap. The vehicle used for kidnap was seized from his possession. The CCTV footages were collected at 8 places, which would establish the involvement of the petitioner - A1. The jute rope was purchased by A1 for commission of offence. The cell phone of the deceased was recovered at the instance of A1. The dead body of the deceased was also recovered at his instance. The call data analysis would establish that A1 communicated with all the other accused for commission of the offence. The cell ID location of the accused during the commission of offence would prove his presence at that time. The confession of hired killers A4 to A7 and A11 also would establish that A1 had planned with the other accused to eliminate the deceased and to bring back his niece to them. The case was at the very advanced stage of trial and the trial was being undertaken on day to day basis. It was a sensational case. At this stage granting bail to the petitioner would influence the witnesses and prayed to dismiss the bail application of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the role of the petitioner / A1 was crucial in hatching and executing the plan to kidnap and kill the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shakthi Vahini v. Union of India 2 had given guidelines for speedy trial of such cases and to complete the trial 2 AIR 2018 SC 1601 8 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 within six months. At present PW39 / LW45 was being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused. At this point of time, granting of bail to the petitioner would certainly influence the witnesses. Panch witnesses were yet to be examined and their evidence was crucial. Therefore granting bail to A1, who was prime accused involved in execution of the brutal murder of the deceased would put the witnesses under threat and there was every possibility of tampering of evidence. The crime committed by the petitioner - A1 was heinous in nature, which shook the collective conscience of the society, enlarging him on bail would pose a threat to the de-facto complainant and also to other witnesses and prayed to dismiss the bail application of the petitioner. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director 3 and in Shakthi Vahini v. Union of India (cited supra) and the orders of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.5819, 5939, 5961, 6095 and 6097 of 2020.
10. Perused the record.
11. The record would disclose that the petitioner - A1 is the main accused in the case and total 18 persons were shown as accused. Except four accused persons A1, A4, A5 and A6 who actually killed the deceased, all other accused persons were granted bail. The petitioner was in custody since 26.09.2020. This is a case of honor killing which created lot of sensation and shook the 3 AIR 2007 SC 451 9 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 collective conscience of the society. A Special Fast Track Court was constituted for the trial of this case. However, as the said Court was stated to be in charge of another 6 courts, though the matter was posted on day to basis, the trial could not be completed though commenced in the month of December, 2021.
12. It was reported that the cross-examination of the witnesses was also taking considerable time as several counsels representing 18 accused persons were cross-examining the witnesses. It was reported that the cross-examination of LW.1 - complainant itself took four months time. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition / Criminal No.8130 of 2023 dated 13.03.2023 also gave a direction to the trial court to conduct the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of fifteen (15) months from the said date.
13. As seen from the record, till date 39 witnesses were examined out of 76 witnesses. The case was half way through the trial. The de-facto complainant victim was strongly contesting the matter and impleading herself in each and every petition opposing bails of all the accused persons, who were none other than her close relatives. She was a single woman taking shelter with the old aged parents of the deceased. As seen from the charge-sheet, the petitioner - A1 along with other accused had committed two more attempts in committing 10 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 the murder of the deceased and succeeded in his third attempt. He was the main accused, who planned and executed the plan in eliminating the deceased. He was the maternal uncle of the de-facto complainant and the brother of A3, who was responsible for engaging the hired assassins A5 to A7 and kidnapping the deceased and took him in his car. The CCTV footages collected by the Investigating Officer would show that he purchased the jute rope, which was used in tying the hands and legs of the deceased and in strangulating him. The mobile phone of the deceased as well as the dead body of the deceased were recovered at his instance. The call data analysis collected by the Investigating Officer also would primafacie prove that A1 had contacted the other accused persons on his mobile several times. The cell tower location of the mobile of the petitioner - accused also would prove his presence at the scene of offence.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI through its Manager (cited supra) held that:
"While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society. A balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and interest of society, as no right can be absolute."11
Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024
15. While referring to the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that:
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very 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 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) Primafacie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge."
16. In the present case, it was also reported that the witnesses had also lodged complaints with regard to the threats faced by them from the accused seeking for their protection and security, which were registered as Crime Nos.623, 624 and 625 of 2020 of PS Gachibowli. As such, considering the nature of accusations against the petitioner - A1 and the reasonable apprehension of threat to the complainant and other witnesses and the possibility of conviction 4 MANU/SC/0677/2005: 2005 CriLJ4149 12 Dr.GRR, J crlp_1547_2024 and nature of supporting evidence, this Court considers that it is not fit to release the petitioner - A1 on bail at this stage.
17. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date: 06th March, 2024 Nsk.