Resulted in dismissal of criminal appeal against bail order. Bench held appellants not entitled to indulgence due to nature of accusations and mandatory provisions of Unlawful Activities Act.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; appellants not entitled for bail; impugned order affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.381 OF 2020
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
Accused Nos.46 and 47 in S.C.No.119 of 2019 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of N.I.A.Act Cases at Vijayawada are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
2
AVSS,J & KSR,J Crl.A.No.381 of 2020
(Prevention) Act, 1967. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the National Investigation Agency filed charge sheet and also supplemental charge sheet. Appellants herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1120 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of N.I.A.Act Cases at Vijayawada, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking their enlargement on bail. The prosecution resisted the said application by filing a counter. The learned Judge, by way of an order, dated 23.12.2019, dismissed the said application. In the present Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, challenge is to the said order passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of N.I.A.Act Cases at Vijayawada.
3
AVSS,J & KSR,J Crl.A.No.381 of 2020
(Protection) Act does not impose any absolute prohibition on the discretion of the Court to consider and grant bail; that the reasons assigned by the learned Judge, for dismissing the application, are neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. State of Kerala v. Raneef [(2011) 1 SCC 784].
2. The order, dated 21.12.2012, in Crl.A.No.824 of
4
AVSS,J & KSR,J Crl.A.No.381 of 2020
Whether the order passed by the learned Special Judge, dismissing the bail application, is sustainable and tenable and whether the appellants are entitled for bail?.
appellants herein, it is stated as follows:
17.32 : Role and involvement of accused Yedala Subba Rao (A46)
17.32.1: The subject was arrested on 13.10.2018 and was examined in police custody during which he furnished details in the presence of independent witnesses about his active involvement in the conspiracy and his association with members of proscribed organization CPI (Maoist) in killing of MLA Shri Kidari Sarveswara Rao and Ex-MLA Siveri Soma in broad day light and in the presence of general public on 23.09.2018 near Livitiputtu village.
17.32.2 : During the police custody, the accused A46 voluntarily disclosed and subsequently pointed out a medical shop
5
AVSS,J & KSR,J Crl.A.No.381 of 2020
at Araku Valley from where he purchased huge quantity of medicine worth about Rs.8000/- to be handed over to a Maoist sent by Vanthala Dharmayya (A84). A46 also pointed out Antriguda junction from where he picked up two Maoists by name Dasu (A86) & Jaggu to be dropped at Arama Ghat. Thereafter, he pointed out a place where Gemmili Sobhan was directed to wait with Maoist Kiran on 23.09.2018 and mount surveillance on the movement of MLA and Ex-MLA’s vehicles and pass on the same to him and Maoist cadres at Livitiputtu Village.
17.32.3 : Investigation revealed that Yedala Subba Rao was a TDP Rytu Sangham President for Dumbriguda Mandal and was active in TDP. He obtained the copy of MLA’s village visits programme and passed on the same to CPI (Maoist) cadres and also shared the movement details of the public representatives to the Maoists enabling them to plan execution of the murder. He was in contact with CPI (Maoist) cadres Dasu (A86) and Jaggu and he provided logistics and shelter to them. He had also planted landmine near Livitiputtu village along with Gemmili Sobhan (A47) and other Maoists on 22.09.2018 as part of conspiracy by the CPI (Maoist) cadres. On 23.09.2018 in order to avoid suspicion, he reached Sarai village at about 12 noon where MLAs Grama Darsini programme was scheduled to be held on the day of incident. He got a call from Gemmilli Sobhan 9A47) at 12.09 hrs i.e. immediately after the MLA and
6
AVSS,J & KSR,J Crl.A.No.381 of 2020
Ex-MLAs vehicles Dumbriguda junction.
crossed
the
17.32.4 : The analysis of Call Data Records (CDRs) of mobile numbers 6304581367,9493957771, 9440913079 obtained by A46 clearly establishes his association with co-accused persons Gemmilli Sobhan (A47) and Vanthala Dharmayya (A84). It was revealed that one number 8309087043 registered in the name of another person and obtained by A46 was in constant touch with Vanthala Dharmayya (A84), it was also in touch with certain Maoist number 9337855913. The call pattern during the relevant period also supports the revelation made by the accused with regard to his association with other accused persons. Apart from 6304581367,9493957771,9440913079, A46 reportedly was using two mobile numbers i.e. 9493957772 and 9491077089. This fact has been corroborated by the witnesses who have stated that A46 used to frequently change his mobile numbers.
17.32.5 : It was revealed during investigation that the accused got in touch telephonically with A47 for the first time on 05.09.2018, i.e. just about 3 weeks prior to the incident. The calls ended on 23.09.2018, i.e. after the incident. The timing of the calls exchanged between A46 and A47 on 23.09.2018 is noteworthy—12.09 hrs i.e. just after the MLA and Ex-MLA crossed the Dumbriguda junction.
17.32.6 : During the police custody, the accused A46 admitted before the police
7
AVSS,J & KSR,J Crl.A.No.381 of 2020
in presence of independent witnesses that he is associated with members of CPI (Maoist) for long; on their directions he had provided the schedule of MLA’s party programme named Grama Vikasam/Grama Darshini to the Maoists Dasu (A86) and Jaggu @ Jogesh; he provided shelter and logistic support to the Maoists and facilitated commission of offence, and he planted the IED along Gemmilli Sobhan (A47) and other Maoists on 22.09.2018 on the way to Sarai near Livitiputtu village.
Gemmili Sobhan(A47)
17.33.1 : He was arrested on 13.10.2018 along with A46 and A49 CPI (Maoist) literature (Banner and Pamphlets) was recovered at the time of his arrest and joint disclosure and subsequent pointing out by Yedela Subba Rao (A46) led to recovery of a landmine weighing about 10 kgs along with electric detonator and 20meters electrical wire near the scene of crime.
17.33.2 The analysis of CDRs of Gemmili Sobhan mobile number 9490335978 and Yedala Subba Rao’s mobile numbers 9493957771 and 6304581367 indicate that they started to talk to each other over phone since 05.09.2018. After the incident he switched off his mobile number for 3 days. Gemmilli Sobhan (A47) admitted that he had provided shelter to CPI (Maoist) at his residence on 05.09.2018 and 22.09.2018 and other logistic support to them till execution of murder of MLA and Ex-MLA. He had also planted the landmine near Livitiputtu Village along with Yedala Subba Rao (A46) and other Maoists on
8
AVSS,J & KSR,J Crl.A.No.381 of 2020
22.09.2018 as part of conspiracy by the CPI (Maoist) cadres.
17.33.3 It was revealed that on 23.09.2018, he along with one Maoist mounted surveillance at Dumbriguda junction on the movement of MLA & ExMLA’s vehicles from 8 am to 12 noon and passed on the information to A46 and Maoist cadres at Livitiputtu Village through accompanying Maoist Kiran.
A46 and A47-appellants herein and the language of proviso to Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, appellants herein, in the considered opinion of this Court, are
9
AVSS,J & KSR,J Crl.A.No.381 of 2020
not entitled for any indulgence of this Court and the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the application for enlargement of A46 and A47 cannot be faulted.
pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J
______________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J
15th December, 2020. Tsy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to appellants accused of conspiracy in killing of public representatives under NIA Act?
Whether the proviso to Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act precludes the court from granting bail?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. RaneefReferred¶16
State of Kerala v. Raneef [(2011) 1 SCC 784] · Who else cites this
National Investigation Agency v. Saddam HussainRelied on¶19
National Investigation Agency v. Saddam Hussain (Crl.A.Nos.791 and 792 of 2016)
6 provisions across 5 enactments
YEDALA SUBBA RAO
GEMMILI SOBHAN
A.V. SESA SAI
K.SURESH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
