Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D. RAMESH, J.
D. Siva Shankar Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
CBI Rep. by Its Spl. Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7550 of 2021
Decided On : 17-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120 and 120B – Criminal procedure Code,1973 – 164.164(1) and 174 – Offence of Murder - Personal Assistant gave a report to Police, stating that deceased found in bathroom lying in pool of blood with certain injuries - On the said complaint, Urban Police registered same as a case in Crime under section 174 of Cr.P.C. On that inquest was conducted over dead body of deceased and it was opined that deceased was murdered by unknown persons - For investigating the same, Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted, headed by Additional DGP - During the course of investigation, basing on statements of several witnesses, SIT arrested one - Later confessional statements of accused were recorded, they were remanded to judicial custody and released on bail consequently - Whether there is prima facie evidence of conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has raised a new ground that Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act would not attract to implicate petitioner under Section 120-B of IPC in the instant case - No doubt learned senior counsel, relying on observations made by the Apex Court in Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar’s case, cited supra, contended that without there is any reasonable ground or evidence to believe that involvement of the persons in an incident, co-conspirator’s statement cannot be considered automatically - Said criteria can be taken at time of trial but it cannot be taken as a ground for granting bail - While considering the bail applications, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case is not required to be looked into - Yet a court dealing with bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of merits of the case is not necessary - Grant or rejection of bail is only to be considered basing on facts and circumstances of each case - If there is any technicality, it can be considered at time of trial, not at the time of considering bail application- Basing on the gravity and seriousness of the case, court below has rightly rejected the bail application of the petitioner - In view of facts and circumstances narrated above and the investigation is at the crucial stage, this court is not inclined to enlarge petitioner on bail and same is liable to be dismissed.
Result : Criminal Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, senior counsel appearing for Sri Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Chennakesavulu, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-CBI.
2. The petitioner herein is alleged to be accused No.5/A5 in Crime No.84 of 2019 of Pulivendula Urban Police station under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code [for short Cr.P.C]. This being the 2nd bail application, filed aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the court below i.e., IV Additional District Judge-Special Sessons Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.), Kadapa in rejecting the bail application.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.2019 at about 8.00 a.m. one Mr. M.V. Krishna Reddy, Personal Assistant of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy [herein after referred as the deceased] gave a report to the Police, Pulevendula stating that the deceased found in the bathroom lying in pool of blood with certain injuries. On the said complaint, Pulivendula Urban Police registered the same as a case in Crime No.84 of 2019 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. On that inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and it was opined that the deceased was murdered by unknown persons. For investigating the same, Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted on 15.03.2019, headed by Additional DGP. During the course of investigation, basing on the statements of several witnesses, SIT arrested one Thummala Gangi Reddy @ Erra Gangi Reddy (A1) on 05.04.2019. Later confessional statements of the accused were recorded, they were remanded to judicial custody and released on bail consequently.
4. While that being so, Mrs. Y. Sowbhagyamma, wife of the deceased filed W.P.No.3944 of 2019 before this Court to entrust investigation to CBI and another Writ Petition No.1639 of 2020 was filed by Dr. D. Sunitha Reddy, daughter of the deceased and her husband-Mr. N. Rajasekhar Reddy. This court by a common order dated 11.03.2020 allowed both the writ petitions, directing the CBI to conduct further investigation. During the course of investigation, CBI arrested one Sunil Yadav (A2) on 02.08.2021 at Goa and was remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2021 by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula and also arrested one Gajjala Uma Sankar Reddy (A3) and remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2021. On 25.08.2021 161 Cr.P.C. statement and on 31.08.2021 164 (1) Cr.P.C. statement of Shaik Dasthagiri (A4) were recorded and he was granted pre-arrest bail by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa on 22.01.2021.
5. In the said statements A4 revealed the role of each accused including himself. According to the statements, it is alleged that A1 informed to A4 that influential people are behind and they will give forty crores of rupees, out of which, A4 will be given five cores. It is also stated that one Sunil Yadav (A2) paid an amount of rupees one crore to A4 and further confessed that he purchased an axe, which was used in the commission of the offence. He further confessed that he caused an injury on the right palm of the deceased with the said axe. According to his statements, A1 informed A4 that he spoke to the petitioner and others and they have assured to take care of the issue.
6. Based on the statement made by A4 under section 164 (1) Cr.P.C., the petitioner was included as accused No.5 (A5), he was arrested on 17.11.2021 and remanded to judicial custody on 18.11.2021.
7. In the said remand report, allegations made against the petitioner are as follows:-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
