Point of Law : Right of the accused to claim bail on account of default committed by the prosecuting agency in completing the investigation within the time stipulated in the statute is a statutory right of the accused and it is also an indefeasible right of the accused to claim bail.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is filed to cancel the bail that was granted to A-1 in C.B.I. Case No.RC-04(S)/2020/SC-III/New Delhi, arising out of Crime No.84 of 2019 of U/G Police Station, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District.

2. Facts germane to dispose of the Criminal Petition may briefly be stated as follows :

(a) The deceased Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy was former M.L.A. of Pulivendula Constituency in Andhra Pradesh State; former Member of Lok Sabha; former Member of A.P. Legislative Council; former Minister for Agriculture and he was also the Member of Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, constituted by the Government of India. He was found dead in his house at Bhakarapuram of Pulivendula Town in Kadapa District in the morning hours of 15.03.2019. His deadbody was found in a pool of blood in his house.

(b) Initially a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered by the local police i.e. U/G Police Station, Pulivendula in Crime No.84 of 2019. Subsequently, a case under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC was registered. Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) was constituted and the said SIT has taken up the investigation. During the course of investigation, police arrested the respondent, who is A-1, in the said Crime on 28.03.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody. As the investigation could not be completed within the stipulated period of time of 90 days, default bail was granted to A-1 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, on 27.06.2019 under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. in Crl. M.P. No.2028 of 2019. He was released on bail as per the said order.

(c) Subsequently, as per order dated 11.03.2020, passed by this Court in W.P.No.3144 of 2019 and W.P.No.1639 of 2020, investigation in the above crime was entrusted to the CBI. Therefore, the CBI has taken up the investigation in the said case. The investigation revealed that a conspiracy was hatched up by A-1 to A-4 along with some other persons to kill the deceased and there are some influenced persons behind the said conspiracy. The investigation further disclosed that A-1 to A-4 have committed murder of the deceased on the intervening night of 14/15.03.2019 in a brutal manner as per their pre-planned strategy and thereafter caused disappearance of evidence at the scene of offence by washing of the blood on the floor in the house of the deceased and in the bathroom of the deceased and escaped from the scene of offence. The watchman of the deceased by name Ranganna gave statement to the police that A-1 was with the deceased on that night in his house and A-2 to A-4 entered the house of the deceased on that night with the help of A-1 and that he has heard some sounds in the house and that thereafter he has seen A-1 to A-4 leaving the house of the deceased on that night and that A-1 warned him with dire-consequences not to disclose regarding the said incident to anyone. The CBI has also collected the other circumstantial evidence relating to the complicity of A-1 to A-4 in commission of the said offence of murder of the deceased in his house. While so, A-4, who was the former driver of the deceased, made a request to the CBI in writing stating that he intends to turn as an approver and that he would disclose all the facts relating to commission of the said offence including the conspiracy hatched up to kill the deceased. The CBI has accepted his request. Accordingly, a petition under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the concerned Court to grant pardon to A-4 as he came forward to disclose the material facts relating to the commission of the said offence of murder. The said petition was allowed tendering pardon to A-4 on condition of disclosing all the facts relating to the offence of murder committed in this case. The said order was challenged by A-1 and A-3 by filing two separate Criminal Petitions before this Court. This Court has dismissed both the petitions filed under