IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J.
SHAIK JILANI @ JANI - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6748 of 2024
Decided On : 06-11-2024
ORDER:
V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J.
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ), is filed by the petitioner/A.1 seeking regular bail in Crime No.184 of 2024 of Vinukonda Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 61(2) read with 190 of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
2. Heard arguments of Sri Sai Bhargav and Sri Pavan Kumar Annabathuni, the learned counsels for petitioner and Sri R.Yella Reddy, the learned counsel for de facto complainant and Sri K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Perused the record.
4. Prosecution case is that Sri Rasheed was murdered on 17.07.2024 at 8:00 P.M. on a road in Vinukonda Town. It is stated that there have been disputes between the deceased and Sri Shaik Jilani @ Jani/A.1. A.1 had an information that the deceased was available near Government Wine shop and with a view to kill him he contacted his aides/A.2, A.5, A.8, A.10 to A.15 and A.17 to 20 and a juvenile in conflict with law and on his instructions the rest of the accused reached the Government Wine shop. The deceased noticed them and started running away. A.1 and his associates ran after him. A.1 was able to reach the deceased and he caught hold of him. His associates surrounded the deceased preventing the general public from interfering. Then using a mutton cutting knife A.1 attacked the victim and by his first blow the left hand of the victim below the left elbow was severed. A.1 did not refrain himself and he further proceeded and had hacked on the head, neck, right hand of the victim and caused serious injuries. The deceased fell in a pool of blood. The associates of A.1 were wielding sticks. The incident occurred on the road and several people captured the incident using cameras available in their mobile phones and the said videos were circulated through social media. One of the police officers who happened to be on bandobust duty around the spot of offence was able to apprehend A.1 and recovered the crime knife from his possession.
5. The brother of the deceased, having got the information about the attack on his younger brother rushed to the spot and found the victim struggling for life. When they were shifting the injured to the hospital he died enroute. Then the elder brother of the deceased lodged written information at 1:00 A.M. on 18.07.2024.
6. A.1 in the said crime was remanded to judicial custody. He filed Crl.M.P.No.382 of 2024 before the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet seeking regular bail. The other accused filed similar petitions. By a common order dated 29.08.2024 the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition of A.1 as well as the petitions of other accused.
7. It is thereafter A.1 moved the present petition praying for regular bail.
8. This petition was filed on 24.09.2024, by which time the investigation was not concluded. However, by the time the matter came up for hearing, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation was completed and a charge sheet was laid. Thereafter, time was granted for both sides to consider the charge sheet and make submissions accordingly.
9. As a matter of fact, a copy of the charge sheet is filed before this Court by the prosecution arraigning A.1 to A.20. It listed 36 witnesses. The last paragraph of the charge sheet reads as below:
“Thus it is evident that the accused A1 along with the other accused A2, A5, A.8 and A.10 to A15, A17 to A20 and CICL who are his associates grew grudge against the deceased due to previous grudges and conspired together, hatched plan and according to their plan A1 and other accused and CICL formed into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, committed rioting and attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and A1 hacked with a mutton cutting knife and killed him instantaneously, and they
The court held that bail cannot be granted based solely on parity with co-accused when the circumstances of the accused differ significantly, especially in serious crimes.
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.
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.
number of injuries found on the dead bodies in the postmortem is in support of FIR version in terms of time and manner (indiscriminate firing) of murder. It also goes to show that the assailants inte....
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with justice.
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
Grant of Bail - circumstances which are peculiar to the accused should also be a factor that must be taken into consideration while granting or refusing bail.
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.