Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Gali Janardhan Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No.528 of 2020 In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7053 of 2013
With
Gali Janardhan Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Diary No. 11949 of 2021
Decided on : 10-10-2022
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh, AOR Mr. Madhur Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Madhavi Goradia Divan, ASG Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv. Mr. TS Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan K. Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
In serious cases, it is always in larger interest that trial is concluded at the earliest – Early conclusion of trial would enhance faith of people in justice delivery system.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Modification of conditions – Applicant seeking permission to enter, stay and function in Districts of Ballery in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh – It is submitted that applicant has never violated any of conditions imposed by Supreme Court in bail order – Applicant is facing trial for very serious offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427 and 447 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 2 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 read with Rules 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Investigation was carried out by CBI – Most of witnesses are from Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh – Taking into consideration apprehension on part of CBI that if applicant is allowed to enter, stay and function in Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh and that there are all possibilities of applicant influencing and/or tampering with witnesses – However, it is very unfortunate that even after a period of 11 years of filing FIR and despite observations made by Supreme Court directing trial to be expedited, trial has not begun – In a case like this, it is always in larger interest that trial is concluded at the earliest – Early conclusion of trial would enhance faith of people in justice delivery system – Trial must come to its logical end at the earliest – Any attempt on part of accused to delay trial of serious offences is to be dealt with iron hands – Application dismissed with direction to Trial Court to begin trial on day to day basis. (Paras 3, 7, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Applicant herein is the accused in RC 17(A)/2009CBIHYD dated 07.12.2009 as amended on 05.09.2011, for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 2 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 read with Rules 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Present application has been preferred by applicant– original accused for an appropriate order of modification of condition No.(c) of the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013 to the extent permitting applicant to enter, stay and function in Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
Findings of Court:
As despite the observations made by Supreme Court directing to expedite the trial, as the trial has not begun, now, a direction is to be issued to the trial Court to begin the trial on day to day basis and once the trial begins the applicant – accused may be restrained from entering into Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh looking to the strong apprehension on part of CBI.
Result : Application dismissed.
ORDER :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Present application has been preferred by the applicant – original accused for an appropriate order of modification of condition No.(c) of the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013 to the extent permitting the applicant to enter, stay and function in the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in RC 17(A)/2009-CBI-HYD dated 07.12.2009 as amended on 05.09.2011, for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 read with Rules 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. That, the applicant – accused was arrested by the CBI on 05.09.2011. Prior to coming to this Court, the applicant – accused approached the learned trial Court as well as the High Court for the grant of regular bail on number of occasions. The said request of the applicant – accused was rejected inter alia on the ground that grant of bail to the applicant – accused may impede fair and uninfluenced investigation. That, when the applicant – accused lastly approached the High Court in the year 2013 by way of filing Criminal Petition No.3632/2013, vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 , considering the gravity of the allegations leveled against the applicant – accused, his influential status and the CBI indicated a reasonable apprehension that the accused is likely to influence the investigation if enlarged on bail, the High Court rejected the bail application. The applicant approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013. By an order dated 20.01.2015, the order which is sought to be now modified, this Court had released the applicant on bail subject to following conditions:
“a) He shall surrender his passport, if not already surrendered, to the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. If he has already surrendered his passport before the learned Principal Special Judge, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit;
b) He shall not leave the country without the leave of the learned Principal Special Judge;
c) He shall not visit the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh;
d) He shall cooperate with the Court in the smooth process of trial and its early conclusion;
e) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to tamper with the evidence;
f) He shall remain present before the learned Principal Special Judge on the dates fixed for hearing of the case without fail. If he requires to remain absent, he shall take prior permission of the learned Principal Special Judge and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately appropriately intimate the learned Principal Special Judge and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel.
g) Insofar as the surety amount is concerned, the petitioner shall execute a bond with two solvent sureties, in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten lakhs only) each.
h) If, for any reason the petitioner fails to comply with all the conditions as stipulated above, the respondents are at liberty to approach this Court for modification/recall of the order granting bail to the petitioner.
10. The grant of bail to the petitioner shall be subject to any other cases that are pending against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is yet to be granted bail by the appropriate court(s).”
3. Present application has been preferred by the applicant – accused to modify and/or delete condition No.(c) reproduced hereinabove and thereby permit him to enter, stay and function in the Districts of Ballery in Karnataka a
