ORDER:

1 This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner / A.7 on bail in S.C.No.5 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar, concerned with Cr.No.592 of 2020 on the file of Gachibowli P.S., Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 364, 379, 448, 449, 341, 352, 323 & 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2 The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent Avanthi and the deceased married and subsequently they got their marriage registered at SRO, Quthbullapur and a marriage certificate was also issued to that effect. Both of them started living in a rented house at TNGO’s colony.

3 While so, the father of Avanthi who was arrayed as A.2, feeling insulted, decided to eliminate the deceased and bring back their daughter to their house and accordingly A.2 in the case hatched a plan with A.1 who is his brother-in-law and promised to give amounts for that purpose. 4 While so, on 24.09.2020 accused No.2 and 3 called their relatives i.e., Accused No.8 to 10, 12 to 17 and discussed with them and asked them to abduct the deceased from his rented house and to hand over him to the accused No.1, 5, 6 and the petitioner herein, so that they take him to secluded place and kill him and bring Avanthi back to their family. In execution of the plan hatched by A.2, A.1, A.8 to 10 and A.12 to 17 have abducted the deceased from his house and took him to a secluded place in strangulated him with a rope. Hence accused No.1 to 18 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 120-B (1), 302, 364, 379, 448, 449, 341, 342, 352, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

5 Heard Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State / respondent No.1 and Sri Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant / respondent No.2 and perused record. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner / A.7 is not figured in the complaint and the FIR, and he has been implicated in the present case only basing on the confession statement of A.1 and A.2 and that apart from the confession statement made by the petitioner given before police. He further submitted that in the entire charge sheet, the only allegation against the petitioner was that A.1, on the instructions of A.2, met A.4 to A.7 (petitioner herein) and discussed about failure of previous attempts and offered to pay Rs.7.00 lakhs and asked to murder the deceased and except that there is no rule of the petitioner / A.7 in the alleged offence. The role of the petitioner was not at all stated in the commission of offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet clearly establish that the petitioner neither involved in abduction or conspiracy much less murder. He further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in jail for the last three years. The entire investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, there is no question of tampering with the witnesses inasmuch as the material witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court. He further submitted that some of the accused have already been enlarged on bail and hence there is no justification in keeping the petitioner in jail for further period. Hence prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7 On the other hand, the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant filed counter affidavit opposing the bail petition filed by the petitioner/A.7. She submitted that on 24.09.2020 the petitioner /A.7 was in active connivance and hatching a plan to kidnap and kill her and her husband. The petitioner along with other accused followed the i20 car in which the second respondent and her husband were forcibly taken, followed in another car. When the cars rea