AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application for regular bail. The petitioner is Accused No.6 in S.C.No.291 of 2021 pending on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein/A.6 are under Sections 120-B, 341, 302, 201 and 109 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) .
Heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. D.B.Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
â€" A.6 and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner herein/A.6 are as follows:-
i) Deceased No.1(herein after referred as D.1)-G.Vaman Rao, posted a whatsapp message in whatsapp group about the complaint lodged before the
Commissioner of Police, Ramgundam and also posted a message that he will file cases with ACB against the petitioner/A.6 and his son. The said
messages infuriated the petitioner/A.6 herein. The D.1 has also posted a message in Whatsapp group that the petitoner/A.6 had removed the current
motor which was given by him for their community and thus, the petitioner/A.6 is responsible for breaching peace in the village. The said whatsapp
message posted was forwarded to A.6 by Medi Venkatesh (L.W.89) and after going through the same, A.6 bore grudge against D.1. Therefore, the
petitioner herein/A.6 discussed the said aspect with A.1 and decided to make D.1 suffer for the same.
ii) The petitioner herein/A.6 supported A.1 to form new Committee to Sri Rama Swamy Gopalaswasmy temple which paved the way for removing
L.W.4, brother of D.1 from temple affairs as A.1 is against to L.W.4, brother of D.1, who is looking after temple affairs since long.
iii) Aggrieved with the above, on the same day night, D.1 summoned his co-brother’s son by name Regulla Ram Mohan Rao(L.W.88) to his house
and warned him by saying that A.5 has to meet him on Wednesday, otherwise, he will eliminate him.
iv) Due to which, the petitioner herein/A.6 further bore grudge against D.1 and assured A.1 that he will cooperate with him to eliminate D.1.
v) The said incidents created a feeling of deep seated animosity among A.1, A.4 and A.6 against D.1 and deceased No.2 (D.2). As such, the A.1,
A.4 and the petitioner herein/A.6 conspired with each other to eliminate D.1 and D.2 at any cost.
vi) With the said objective, they roped the other accused viz: A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.7 to provide assistance in furtherance of the said objective. The
accused were waited for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased. Thus, the petitioner herein/A.6 committed the aforesaid offences.
CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITONER:
i) Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri D.B.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/A.6 would submit
that the petitioner herein is a retired Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department and aged about 61 years. He is suffering with various old age
ailments. In proof of the same, he has also filed medical certificate dated 27.07.2021 issued by a Civil Assistant Surgeon/RMO, Osmania Hospital and
also Civil Assistant Surgeon, Central Prison, Cherlapally.
ii) Learned Senior Counsel would submit that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner herein and admittedly the petitioner herein was not
there on the spot and he is not involved in the commission of offence. His role is not there at all in the commission of offences.
iii) The police have arrested him on 18.03.2021. Since then the petitioner herein is in jail.
iv) The Investigating officer has completed investigation and filed charge sheet. The same was taken on file vide S.C.No.291 of 2021.
v) Therefore, languishing the petitioner herein in jail is unwarranted.
vi) Referring to the contents of the charge sheet, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the only allegation against the petitioner herein is that he
will cooperate with A.1 in eliminating D.1. The petitioner/A.6 bore grudge on D.1 and tried to eliminate him as part of conspiracy. Except that there is
no allegation against the petitioner herein.
vii) Referring to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnan Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427,
learned Senior Counsel would submit that basic rule of our criminal justice system is bail, not jail. Therefore, he sought to grant bail to the petitioner
herein/A.6 on imposition of any condition so that the petitioner herein will cooperate with the trial court in concluding trial.
viii) With the said submissions, he sought to grant bail to the petitioner herein/A.6.
CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
i) The role played by the petitioner herein is specifically mentioned in the charge sheet.
ii) The petitioner herein/A.6 bore grudge against D.1 and the said events are specifically mentioned in the charge sheet.
iii) The Investigating Officer on recording the statements of the witnesses only, laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein since his role is also
there in the commission of offences.
iv) There is specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he will cooperate with the A.1 in eliminating the D.1. Even now, the said cooperation
would be there to A.1.
v) The petitioner/A.6 being retired Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, is highly influential man and there is every possibility of
threatening the family members of the deceased as well as witnesses.
vi) It is a case of double murder of Advocate couple during day light. Therefore, there is every possibility of threatening the witnesses by the petitioner
herein by using his influence and also money in which event it would definitely obstruct fair trial in S.C.No.291 of 2021.
vii) With the said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the said petition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
In view of the above stated facts, it is relevant to note that it is a case of double murder of Advocate couple. Both the D.1 and D.2 are Practicing
Advocates. All the accused conspired with each other and committed double murder of Advocate couple during day light. In view of the same, at
request of L.W.172-Circle inspector of Police, Sultanabad and L.W.183-Investigating Officer, L.W.133-learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Manthani, recorded confession statements of all the accused and witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer has also
recorded the statements of L.W.88-Son of co-brother of D.1. He has also recorded the statement of L.W.89-Medi Venkatesh who forwarded the
whatsapp message to the petitioner herein/A.6. On appreciation of statements and documents, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against
the petitioner herein.
A perusal of contents of the said charge sheet would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioner herein and D.1with regard to appointment
of new committee of Ramaswamy Gopalaswamy temple at Gunjapadugu village. Brother of D.1 i.e. L.W.4 was looking after the temple from 2009.
A new committee for the said Temple was elected with the help of A.6 under the chairmanship of L.W.50, A.1 as its convener which was to the
resentment of D.1. Therefore, D.1 made attempts to get the newly formed committee dissolved through L.W.47 and a press statement was released
stating that new committee is not valid. Thus, A.1 who has close acquaintance with A.2 to A.6 shared his ill-feelings with them and decided to
eliminate D.1 and his wife D.2.
It is also relevant to note that there are disputes between A.1 and D.1 with regard to construction of Peddamma temple which is being constructed
in Gunjapadugu village under the leadership of A.1. D.1 has posted a message in whatsapp group stating that the said construction is illegal and upon
which L.W.51, 52 and 123, Secretaries of Gram Panchayat, Gunjapadugu had issued three notices. L.Ws.123 has also issued notice to A.1 at the
behest of D.1 stating that the house being constructed by A.1 is illegal.
It is also relevant to note that in the charge sheet, it is specifically alleged that on 24.09.2020, the Brahmin community of Gunjapadugu village
unanimously elected A.6 as their President and A.6 provided food etc. in their community hall by collecting donations etc. He has appointed L.W.90
as caretaker of the said community hall. They have invited L.W.90 to release new calendar. Thus, A.6 earned good name among their caste, but D.1
was not happy with the same. D.1 asked A.6 to remove L.W.90 as caretaker of the said community hall. A.6 has also created a new whatsapp
group. L.W.4, brother of D.1, has lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam against A.6. Thus, there are serious disputes
between D.1 and A.4.
D.1 posted whatsapp message in the whatsapp group about the complaint lodged by him before the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam. He
has also posted whatsapp message that D.1 will file cases against the petitioner herein and his son with ACB officials. D.1 has also posted another
message in whatsapp stating that the petitioner herein/A.6 had removed the current motor which was given by him for their community and the
petitioner herein/A.6 is responsible for breaching peace in the village. The said post was forwarded to the petitioner herein/A.6 by L.W.89 and after
going through the same, the petitioner herein/A.6 bore grudge against the D.1. Therefore, he has discussed the same with A.1 and they have decided
to make D.1 suffer for the same. The petitioner herein/A.6 supported A.1 to form a new Committee to Sri Rama Swamy Gopalaswasmy temple
which pave the way for removing L.W.4-brother of D.1 from temple affairs, as A.1 is against L.W.4-brother of D.1, who is looking after temple
affairs since long time.
It is also further mentioned in the charge sheet that aggrieved with the same, on the same day night, D.1 summoned his co-brother’s son â€
L.W.88 to his house and warned him by saying that the petitioner herein/A.6 has to meet him on Wednesday, otherwise, he will eliminate him.
Knowing about the same, the petitioner herein/A.6 further bore grudge and assured him to cooperate in eliminating D.1. It is also relevant to note that
in the charge sheet it is specifically mentioned that the Investigating Officer has obtained FSL reports vide File No.COM/78/2021 and COM/85/2021
which are at serial No.14 and 13 of Annexure No.VII. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein.
In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia (2020) 2 SCC 118, the Hon’ble Apex 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 Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598, 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.
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:
(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.â€
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 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.
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 Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, 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.
…
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…â€
The Hon’ble Apex Court has also referred to the principles laid down by it in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (1977) 4 SCC 308,
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.
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.
It is also relevant to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Bal Chand (1977) 4 SCC 308 held that the basic rule
of criminal justice system is bail, not jail. The High Courts and Courts in the district judiciary in India must enforce the said principle in practice, and
not forego that duty, leaving the Supreme Court to intervene at all times.
In view of the said law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, coming to the facts of the case on hand as discussed supra, both the
deceased are practicing Advocate couple. They were brutally murdered during day light. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of as
many as 183 witnesses. At request of the Investigating Officer, learned Magistrate has recorded statements of accused and witnesses under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner herein is a retired Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, and he belongs to the very same village to
which the D.1 belongs to and there are serious disputes between them. The specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he bore grudge against
D.1 and therefore, he conspired with A.1 to eliminate D.1. In view of the same, there is apprehension that the petitioner herein will interfere in the fair
trial, threaten the witnesses and also the family members of the deceased.
As discussed supra, while considering the bail application, this Court has to keep in mind, the factors mentioned by the Apex Court in Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar (supra) that whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence, nature and
gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail,
character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced and danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Therefore, it is manifest that this Court has to consider the said
factors while granting or rejecting bail.
As discussed above, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein/A.6 and gravity of the offences is also very serious.
The Character, behaviour and other factors are also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. There is also reasonable apprehension that the
witnesses being influenced.
In view of the above said discussion, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein/A.6 and the Criminal Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.