ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
S. Muragan @ Muruga – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1050 of 2022
Decided On : 23-03-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - BAIL - SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 147, 148, 302, 307, 120-B, 109 READ WITH SECTION 149, SECTIONS 212, 216 AND SECTION 201 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, SECTIONS 25(IA), 25(IAAA), 25(1B)(A), 25(1B)(C), 27(3) AND SECTION 30 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959 - PETITIONER, A-6 IN S.C.NO.110 OF 2016, FACING PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY AND MURDER OF MAYOR - BAIL DENIED DUE TO GRUESOME NATURE OF CRIME, PETITIONER'S ROLE IN CONSPIRACY, AND ATTEMPTS TO DELAY TRIAL.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONER, A-6 IN S.C.NO.110 OF 2016, FACING PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY AND MURDER OF MAYOR - PETITIONER ALLEGEDLY HATCHED CONSPIRACY, ARRANGED VEHICLES AND MASKS FOR ASSAILANTS, AND WAITED NEAR OFFICE DURING CRIME - TRIAL DELAYED DUE TO ACCUSED'S DILATORY TACTICS.
Finding of the Court:
PETITIONER'S ROLE IN CONSPIRACY AND MURDER OF MAYOR FOUND SUBSTANTIAL - TRIAL DELAY ATTRIBUTED TO ACCUSED'S ATTEMPTS TO PROTRACT PROCEEDINGS - BAIL DENIED DUE TO GRUESOME NATURE OF CRIME AND PETITIONER'S POTENTIAL TO TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE.
Issues: WHETHER PETITIONER, A-6 IN S.C.NO.110 OF 2016, SHOULD BE GRANTED BAIL IN LIGHT OF HIS ROLE IN CONSPIRACY AND MURDER OF MAYOR, AND THE DELAY IN TRIAL.
Ratio Decidendi: PETITIONER'S ROLE IN CONSPIRACY AND MURDER OF MAYOR, AS WELL AS HIS ATTEMPTS TO DELAY TRIAL, WEIGHED AGAINST GRANTING BAIL - GRUESOME NATURE OF CRIME AND POTENTIAL FOR TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE FURTHER SUPPORTED DENIAL OF BAIL.
Final Decision: CRIMINAL PETITION DISMISSED - TRIAL COURT DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH TRIAL EXPEDITIOUSLY.
ORDER
1. This criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
2. The petitioner is A-6 in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor which is arising out of Crime no. 130 of 2015 of Chittoor I Town Police Station.
3. The petitioner has been facing prosecution along with other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 120-B, 109 read with Section 149, Sections 212, 216 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25(IA), 25(IAAA), 25(1B)(a), 25(1B)(c), 27(3) and Section 30 of Indian Arms Act, 1959.
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that assailants in this case entered the office of Mayor in Chittoor District along with a pistol by wearing masks and trespassed into the chambers of Mayor during day time and committed murder of the Mayor and shot her at point blank with a pistol and thereafter created a panic situation in the office by threatening the officials in the office of the Mayor and left the scene of offence. The Mayor died on account of the gunshot injuries sustained in the hands of assailants. The said gruesome murder was committed in broad day light in pursuance of the conspiracy that is hatched up among all the accused in this case. It is stated that the petitioner herein who is A-6 is the main person behind conspiracy which was hatched up and he is responsible for the murder of the Mayor that took place on the date of offence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than seven years period and trial of the case is not commenced till now and as the petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last seven years period, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner is not the person who committed the murder of the deceased and the allegation against him is only that he has hatched up conspiracy along with other accused to commit the offence of murder. Therefore, in view of the limited role attributed to the petitioner, he prayed for grant of bail.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that the person who is behind the conspiracy and the murder of the Mayor is the petitioner herein. He would submit that he has hatched up the conspiracy by engaging services of assailants who committed the murder of the Mayor in this case and he has arranged vehicles and masks etc., to the assailants for the purpose of murder of the deceased and he was waiting outside of office of the Mayor and thereafter with the help of the petitioner herein that all the accused have escaped from the scene of offence. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner is the main person who is responsible for hatching up conspiracy and murder of the Mayor in this case. He would submit that the petitioner is influenced person and if he is released on bail, he would tamper with the prosecution evidence and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Earlier when A-1 has filed Crl.P.No.2032 of 2020 for grant of bail, this Court while dismissing the said application has directed the trial Court to conduct expeditious trial of the case. The following order is passed as is evident from the Paragraph No. 12 of the order dated 16.07.2020:
"In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the learned Sessions Judge, before whom this case is pending for trial, is directed to expedite the trial of the case. As the trial courts are now permitted to hold virtual courts in view of the present pandemic situation, the trial court, in consultation with the Special public Prosecutor, if any appointed, and also learned defense counsel appearing for the accused shall decide whether to hold the trial by holding virtual courts or by holding a regular court a
ACCUSED'S ATTEMPTS TO DELAY TRIAL CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUND FOR SEEKING BAIL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ACCUSED IS THE MAIN CONSPIRATOR IN A GRUESOME MURDER.
Interim bail can be granted in cases of medical needs.
The court emphasized that serious crimes with premeditated actions and potential threats to witnesses warrant denial of bail, especially when no change in circumstances is presented.
Bail for accused involved in heinous crimes requires careful assessment of individual roles and public safety, with parity not considered if roles differ significantly.
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence and the right to bail are fundamental, particularly when evidence is insufficient to justify continued detention.
The court emphasized that in serious offenses like honor killing, the potential threat to witnesses and the severity of the crime outweigh the accused's right to bail.
The severity of the crime, the danger of accused absconding, and the likelihood of witness tampering are significant factors in determining bail eligibility.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.