Telangana High Court
Shaik Dasthagiri vs Y. S. Avinash Reddy on 3 May, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2960 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/A.4 to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to 1st respondent/A.8 vide order dated 31.05.2023 in Crl.P.No.3798 of 2023.
2. Heard Sri Jada Shravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent, Sri Anilkumar Tenwar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior counsel representing Ms. Tekuri Swetcha, learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent.
3. This Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 in Crl.P.No.3798 of 2023 granted anticipatory bail to the 1st respondent herein/A.8 on the following conditions:-
i. On execution of a personal bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the CBI. ii. He shall not leave the country without prior permission from CBI, till the investigation is completed.2
iii. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or alter any evidence.
iv. He shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the CBI Police on every Saturday from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm, till the end of June, 2023 and shall regularly appear as and when he is required for investigation. He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious investigation. v. In the event of the petitioner committing any default, it is open to the CBI to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail.
4. In the present case, the Investigating Officer has completed investigation and laid charge sheet on 26.10.2021, first supplementary charge sheet on 31.01.2022 and second supplementary charge sheet on 28.06.2023. The 1st respondent's name was shown as A.8 in the second supplementary charge sheet. The same was taken on file vide S.C.No.1 of 2023 and it is at the stage of arguments on framing of issues.
5. It is apt to note that 3rd respondent herein has filed SLP (Crl) No.3448 of 2024 challenging the said order and it is pending.
6. While the matter stood thus, A.4/ Approver has filed the present Application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner/A.8 referring the following two incidents:- 3
Incident No.1: On 08.03.2024 at about 8.00P.M., three henchmen of A.8 made an attempt to commit murder (attacked) of petitioner's/A.4 father. They have attacked him. The petitioner is the prosecuting witness and not his family. R.1/A.8 made an attempt to threaten the petitioner/A.4 and his family with dire consequences by attempting to commit murder of his father.
7. According to 1st respondent, he never sent any one to attack the petitioner's/A.4 father or anyone else. He never interfered with the dispensation of criminal justice. He has not made any attempt to interfere or tamper with the witnesses and evidence.
8. It is contended by the 1st respondent that it appears that the father of the petitioner was involved in an accident on the night of 08.03.2024 and Pulivendula Police had already registered a case in Cr.No.10 of 2024 on 09.03.2024 at the instance of one Yallaturu Chinna Kadirappa. The complainant therein was travelling along with one Ralla Mallikarjuna, on a two-wheeler and due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused therein, the bike hit a footpath on Namalagundu Bridge and both of them fell down from the bike. The bike skidded and dashed to Mr. Hajivalli (father of the petitioner/A.4) who was walking in the opposite direction. In the said incident, the 4 complainant and father of the petitioner/A.4 sustained minor injuries and the Police have investigated into the said crime. The statements of several witnesses were recorded and the same would reveal that it is an accident, but 1st respondent never sent anybody to attack the father of the petitioner herein/A.4. He is taking advantage of the said incident, registration of Cr.No.10 of 2024 and filed the present application with mala fide intention. Thus, 1st respondent never violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court in the aforesaid order. He neither threatened any witness nor interfered with the investigation or trial as alleged by the petitioner. Incident No.2:-
Son of A.5, Dr. Chaitanya Reddy, by diligently managing Superintendent/Jailor i.e. Mr. Prakash of Kadapa Central Jail, entered into Central Jail, under the pretext of conducting health camp on 28.11.2023. The said Dr.Chaitanya Reddy is a private Doctor, carried 20 crore cash into the jail, and met the petitioner/A.4 near SSR barrack in Central Jail, Kadapa at around 6.00 P.M. i.e. after locking the prisoners in barrack. Everyday the prisoners will be locked at 4.20 P.M. as per Kadapa Central Prison Rules. Dr.Chaitanya Reddy requested the petitioner not to be a prosecuting witness anymore by 5 offering him 20 Crore cash. On enquiry by the petitioner as to how he entered into the prison, the said Dr. Chaitanya Reddy, replied that he can come into the jail at his whims and fancies as Mr. Y.S.Avinash Reddy, Mr. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Smt. Y.S.Bharathi W/o Mr. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, are on his side and they can do whatever they want. He further stated that, if the petitioner withdraws himself as prosecution witness, then Mr. Y.S.Avinash Reddy, Mr. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, will look after his children and family. If the petitioner has any doubts regarding his words, he would allow the petitioner to talk with Mr. Y.S.Avinash Reddy, and Mr. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy over phone. He further stated that because of the petitioner/A.4, his father is behind the bars, and Mr. Bhasker Reddy health got disturbed. If anything happens to Mr. Bhasker Reddy, he will see the end of petitioner and his family members. He requested the petitioner to remain silent and do what they will say, so that they will offer government jobs to the petitioner's entire family members and take care of his family, if not, they will see his and his family members end. He further threatened the petitioner that not to come in between the political issues and family issues and threatened to withdraw himself from the prosecution 6 witness. Taking advantage of the high profile political nature, A.8 and his henchmen threatened the petitioner and his family members and are trying to interfere with the fair trial.
9. According to R.1/A.8, he has nothing to do with the first incident. He never sent anybody including said Dr. Chaitanya Reddy, to jail as alleged by him. Referring to information furnished by Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Kadapa, he would contend that Dr.Chaitanya Reddy never met the petitioner herein in Central jail. It is impossible to meet the petitioner as he is found in a separate jail. The jail is under 24 hours CCTV footage surveillance. The petitioner herein/A.4 is an approver and he was kept in a separate barrack as per the procedure invoking AP Prisoner Rules, 1979. There is no explanation much less plausible explanation from the petitioner as to carrying of 20 Crores amount to Central Prison, Kadapa as alleged by the petitioner.
10. As discussed supra, this is an application filed by the petitioner/A.4 seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to R.1/A.8.
7
11. Apex Court in Dr. Narendra K Amin vs State Of Gujarat 1 laid down certain guidelines for cancellation of bail. Bail can be cancelled only on the complaint that the accused has violated the conditions imposed by the Court while granting bail. The bail once granted cannot be cancelled on flimsy grounds and the Court has to specifically mention the reasons for cancellation of bail.
12. In Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2, the Apex Court held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the 1 (2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 813 2 (1995) 1 SCC 349 8 cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
13. In V.Chinna Reddy Vs. N.Vidyasagar Reddy 3, the High Court of A.P., had an occasion to deal with the scope and ambit of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., and held that the Sessions Court or High Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of cancellation under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. at its whims and fancy. It can cancel only on specific grounds that the accused has committed misconduct or misuse of the terms of the bail or that the accused is trying to abscond after the charge-sheet is filed or threatening or influencing or tampering with the evidence or interfering with the investigation or obstructing the judicial process or otherwise misusing or abusing the bail. The fact that the Magistrate is committing the accused to Sessions Court for trial does not from a valid ground for the Sessions Judge of the High Court to remand the accused to custody, as it does 3 1982 Crl.LJ 2183 9 not constitute a ground for cancellation of bail which was already granted. The cancellation of bail can only be on the ground known to law.
14. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 4, the Apex Court held as follows:
"It is a well-settled principle of law that while dealing with an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. The decision in Rajballav Prasad emphasises that while the liberty of the subject is an important consideration, the public interest in the proper administration of criminal justice is equally important:
"...undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of 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.4
AIR 2015 SC 3703 10 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."
15. In Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 5, the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the powers of the Court of Sessions and also High Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., and held as follows:
"Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court."
16. In Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan 6, the Apex Court held as follows:
"It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, 5 2012 (12) SCC 180 6 (2011) 5 SCC 296 11 the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
17. The Apex Court, in Ms.X Vs. The State of Telangana 7, after referring the principles held by it in Neeru Yadav's case (supra), Kanwar Singh'(supra), Dolat Ram (supra) and Subramani Gopalakrishnan (supra) held that the Court must bear in mind that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event has been made out.
18. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncement of law, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to A.8/R.1 on imposition of the aforesaid conditions. The same cannot be cancelled on mere 7 Criminal Appeal No.716/2018, dated 17.05.2018 12 allegations. The petitioner has to establish that the petitioner/A.8 has violated the aforesaid conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail by producing cogent evidence. Except the aforesaid two incidents, the petitioner herein failed to file any material.
19. As discussed supra, anticipatory bail granted to R.1/A.8 was under challenge before the Apex Court. The petitioner herein has filed the present application seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that R.1/A.8 is threatening the witnesses including the petitioner and his father in violation of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to him. Therefore, this Court has to consider the events that were said to have been occurred after granting of anticipatory bail to R.1/A.8.
20. The petitioner/A.4, on the aforesaid two incidents, would contend that R.1/A.8 violated the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail and threatened the petitioner and his father. As discussed supra, first incident i.e. the incident dated 08.03.2024 is with regard to an accident. A case in Cr.No.10 of 2024 was registered against the accused therein. Perusal of the said complaint and remand report in Cr.No.10 of 2024 would reveal that the said accident occurred due the rash and negligent driving of the 13 accused therein, the bike hit the footpath, both of them fell from the bike, the bike skidded and dashed the father of the petitioner who was walking in the opposite direction. Investigation is still pending. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. None of the witnesses stated about involvement of the R.1/A.8 in the said accident in any manner. Therefore, it is not a ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to R.1/A.8.
21. With regard to second incident that i.e. Dr.Chaitanya Reddy, son of A.5 went to the Central Jail with 20 crores cash, offered it to the petitioner herein and stated that he would provide government jobs to his family members if he cooperates with R.1/A.8 and other accused in getting their acquittal by remaining silent. He threatened A.4 that if he fails to accept the said request made by Dr.Chaitanya Reddy, they will see end of him and his family members. It is the specific contention of R.1/A.8 that the said Dr.Chaitanya Reddy is a doctor, he went to jail along with so many people including Doctors, Super Specialists for the purpose of conducting health camp. It is highly improbable that Dr.Chaitanya Reddy went to the jail along with 20Crores cash and met the petitioner. The petitioner is in a special barrack at that particular point of time as per the Rules of said jail. 14 The entire jail is under CCTV surveillance. In proof of the same, A.8/R.1 has filed information furnished by the Superintendent of Jail, Kadapa. Thus, the petitioner herein failed to file any other material to show that R.1/A.8 threatened him, except making the aforesaid allegations.
22. As discussed supra, on mere allegation, this Court cannot cancel the anticipatory bail granted to R.1/A.8. This Court has to cancel the bail granted to R.1/A.8 only on the ground known to law and that he has committed misconduct and misused the conditions of bail order that he is trying to abscond or threatening or tampering with the evidence or interfering with the trial. This Court has to give sound reasoning while cancelling anticipatory bail granted to R.1/A.8.
23. As discussed supra, the petitioner herein failed to produce any cogent evidence with regard to second incident. Therefore, it is also not a ground to cancel anticipatory bail granted to R.1/A.8
24. R.1/A.8 is sitting Member from Kadapa Parliamentary Constituency, he is also a close relative of Mr. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. He is an influential person. That itself is not a ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to him. His anticipatory bail can be cancelled only if he 15 threatens witnesses and interferes with the fair trial. In the present case, the petitioner herein failed to produce any evidence to satisfy this Court that R.1/A.8 interferred with the trial and threatened the witnesses.
25. It is also apt to note that R.1/A.8 is contesting in the ensuing parliamentary elections, 2024. Therefore, anticipatory bail granted to him on the aforesaid two incidents cannot be cancelled.
26. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has already made an application under Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and report is called for and the same is under consideration.
27. As discussed supra, A.3 has already filed SLP challenging the anticipatory bail granted to R.1/A.8 and the same is pending.
28. Sri Jada Sharavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 8 wherein the High Court dismissed the said application filed by Gajjala Uma Sankar Reddy, challenging the order dated 26.11.2021 in Cr.No.84 of 2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate granting of pardon to the petitioner herein. 8 (2022) Law Suit(AP) 162 16
29. Sri Anilkumar Tenwar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would contend that CBI has received two complaints, dated 01.03.2024 from the petitioner and complaint dated 27.04.2023 from the wife of the petitioner. They have enquired into the same. There are serious allegations against R.1/A.8. He would further submit that 3rd respondent has already filed SLP vide SLP (Crl.) No.3448 of 2024 challenging the order dated 31.05.2023 granting anticipatory bail to R.1/A.8. She has also filed SLP vide SLP (Crl) No.4448 of 2024 granting bail to A.5 by this Court and the same is pending. R.1/A.8 is sitting Member of Parliament. He is very close relative to Mr. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, highly influential people. Therefore, he is interfering with the fair trial, threatening the witnesses including father of the petitioner herein/A.4. If anticipatory bail granted to A.8 is not cancelled, he may be further threaten the witnesses in which event, it is not possible to the trial Court to conduct fair trial.
30. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex 17 Court in State (Delhi administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi 9, Dolat Ram (supra), Myakala Dharmarajam vs. State of Telangana 10, Centrum Financial Services Limited vs. State of NCT of Delhi 11, Vaddu Lakshmidevamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 12
31. Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State rep. by CBI vs. Anil Sharma 13, State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal 14 Neeru Yadav (supra), Munilakshmi vs. Narendra Babu 15 and Sanjay Gandhi (supra) would contend that while deciding an application filed seeking cancellation of bail/anticipatory bail granted to a person, this Court has to consider fair trial which is integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, nature of the allegations and the nature of offence committed by the accused is against society. But in the present case, this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to R.1/A.8 vide order dated 31.05.2023 and the same is under challenge before the Apex Court in 9 (1978) 2 SCC 411 10 (2020) 2 SCC 743 11 (2022) 13 SCC 286 12 (2022) SCC OnLine AP 2155.
131997 (7) SCC 187 14 (1987) 2 SCC 364 15 (2023) SCC On Line SC 1380 18 SLP (Crl.) No.3448 of 2024 filed by 3rd respondent. Therefore, this Court has to consider as to whether R.1/A.8 has violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court in the aforesaid order and the aforesaid factors while deciding the present application filed seeking cancellation of bail.
32. As discussed supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that R.1/A.8 has not violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to him. The petitioner herein failed to make out the above stated factors by producing cogent evidence to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to R.1/A.8. Therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed.
33. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:03.04.2024.
Vvr