G.R.Janardhanareddy v. C.Kundanandan Reddy , C.K.N.Reddy

Telangana HC9 Sept 2014CRLP/7103/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to cancel anticipatory bail granted to accused in two criminal cases involving severe injuries. Instead, the Court modified bail orders by imposing stricter conditions, requiring stricter reporting, restraining the accused from entering victim areas, and ensuring availability for trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail orders modified by adding conditions: appearance at all procedural stages, weekly reporting, bar on entering victim areas, strict court attendance, surrender of passport/assets, and

G.R.Janardhanareddy Vs C.Kundanandan Reddy , C.K.N.Reddy — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7103 and 7104 of 2014

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Criminal Petition Nos.7103 and 7104 of 2014 are filed for cancellation of bail granted as per the orders in Crl.M.P.Nos 785 and 786 of 2014 in passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, on 06-05-2014 in Cr.Nos 42 and 43 of 2014 of Raamakuppam Police Station, by the respective de facto complainants (Injured) by name Janardhan Reddy and Muni Reddy who are two among three sons of Rami Reddy including Venugopal Reddy (one of other injured), for the occurrence covered by respective crimes one on 2304-2014 and other on 24-04-2014 which are registered as Cr.No. 42 of 2014 of Ramakuppam Police Station for the offences under Sections 354, 323, 324 r/w.34 IPC and Cr.No.43 of 2014 of same Police station for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324 r/w.34 IPC. The accused persons none other than respondents 1 to 7 in Cr.No.42 of 2014 of Crl.P.No.7103 of 2014 and respondents 1 to 4 in Cr.No.43 of 2014 of Crl.P.No.7104 of 2014.

¶4

2. The contentions in both the applications seeking cancellation of bail are almost similar with reference to the case facts and propensity of the crime and in saying the learned Sessions Judge in granting anticipatory bails went wrong and under the erroneous assumption that because of alleged civil disputes the propensity of the crime is watered down, that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have dismissed the anticipatory bails and without considering the propensity, simply by saying that there are civil disputes between the parties and against the de facto complainant respectively there are some other crimes at the instance of A-1 in both crimes in granting anticipatory bail with conditions of Rs.10,000/- self-bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the

¶5

learned Magistrate and to report before Station House officer, (SHO) Ramakuppam Police Station on every Sunday until further orders.

¶6

3. They sought for cancellation also saying in the additional material filed though not taken a ground in the original cancellation applications that the accused persons threatened the victim and the witnesses to do away by showing knives and also threatened to made them lead life sleepless and even on

¶7

15-07-2014 they reported to the SHO Ramakuppam Police Station, but, no action was taken.

¶8

4. As contended by the learned counsel for the accused respectively in the two applications, that there is no proof about the said complaint and it is engineered as an additional material to give strength to the cancellation applications.

¶9

5. A perusal of the additional material show besides the original cancellation applications of the bail orders enclosures of the First Information Reports (FIRs) and photos and the nature of injury sustained by respective de facto complainants and the other brother of them and brother-in-law of one of them with severe head injury incised and wound certificates described those as grievous at parietal region with fractures with Subdural haematoma respectively to one of the two de facto complainants and other to the brother-inlaw of one of the de facto complainants.

¶10

6. The report discloses that the two de facto complainants are residing with families at Bangalore and their younger brother Venugopal Reddy and their father and other family members are residing at their native place Pamanaboyanapally H/o.Bandrlapalli panchayath and while so on 23-04-2014 when their younger brother Venugopal Reddy was attending household work along with their parents keeping in mind the earlier disputes A-1 Kundan Reddy who

¶11

is also the injured and de facto complainant in Cr.No.44 of 2014 [registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324 r/w.34 IPC against four persons who are three brothers and brother-in-law of one of them] with others like M.Ramesh Reddy, J.Goverdhan Reddy, Ademma, Padmanabanami Reddy, Somasekhar Reddy, Gangojamma, Yasodamma raided armed with iron rods and beat Venugopal Reddy and when their parents tried to rescue Venugopal Reddy the accused persons outraged the modesty of their mother Rukminamma by tearing her blouse and saree, fisted and caused internal injuries and also kicked with legs wearing shoes and their brother Venugopal Reddy was injured in their hands, shoulder, back with severe bleeding and contusion injuries and they were prevented luckily by the villagers.

¶12

7. Besides Cr.No.42 of 2014 from the report supra; the report of Cr.No.43 of 2014 speaks that by coming to know of occurrence (in Cr.No.42/2014) against their brother on 23-04-2014 both the de facto complainants came from Bangalore and visited their brother Venugopal Reddy at the government hospital having come to know through Sridhar brother in law of Munireddy, one of brothers. After visiting Venugopal Reddy who is undergoing treatment as in-patient in Kuppam hospital for severe injuries; they came to their house and while drafting report to give complaint to the police for the occurrence of the previous day (Cr.No.42/2014) the accused persons supra of whom A-1 Kundanandan Reddy, who is their uncle armed with planked knife (Kathipeeta) hacked Kasi Reddy on his fore-head and with a stick piece, Goverdhan Reddy hacked Janardhan Reddy on his head where from also sustained bleeding injuries and Kundanandan Reddy and his brother Janardhan Reddy also caused injuries on left hand, back, parietal region with the plank knife and while he was trying to rescue, Dhanunjaya Reddy hacked him with iron rod on his head and they sustained bleeding injuries.

¶13

Hence, to take action.

¶14

8. These show the deep rooted animosity between the two groups. One is Rami Reddy and three sons and other is brother-inlaw of Rami Reddy by name Kundan Reddy A-1 and his brother and sons and family members relating to some civil dispute that civil dispute includes the way to the house of Kundan Reddy to reach the road and de facto complainant and their family members as per the allegations of Kundanandana Reddy in his W.P.No.10834 of 2008 made construction by encroaching the public road about 18 ½ cents with compound wall and construction was while in progress. According to him he moved Writ petition and obtained interim direction dated 16-04-2014 in W.P.M.P.No.13593 of 2014 where there was an order against District Collector and other revenue officials, the panchayath Raj officials including Sarpanch of the village to cause to remove obstruction after opportunity and hearing to the extent covered by any illegal construction in the public road.

¶15

9. According to the de facto complainants the accused persons taking advantage of earlier disputes and animosity in their absence attacked their brother and when they came and preparing report to inform the police they attacked them and one of the brother-in-laws of them. According to A-1 it is after he moved the writ petition, they bore grudge and there was an attack on him covered by Cr.No.44 of 2014. It speaks from his report that it was on that day 24-04-2014 at about 10 am or so and Cr.No.43 of 2014 is also after 10 am to say both are case and counter of attack at same place. However, the enclosure filed with it without referring to the earlier enclosure shows an earlier occurrence as if of date 23-04-2014 evening attack on A-1 by the de facto complainant’s brother and other members of the family by indiscriminate beating made him without sleep in the night and it is on the next day i.e. on 24-04-2014 morning went to the police station to give report. The so-called occurrence of 23-04-2014

¶16

against alleged

¶17

A-1 Kundanandana Reddy from the enclosure not form part of First Information Report (FIR) shows a weaved story by him to give some credence to the occurrence. This shows that the accused in both Cr.Nos 42 and 43 of 2014 are aggressors prima facie. The photos and wound certificates show severe incised and lacerated injuries with open fracture to the head of one Kasi Reddy and another Muni Reddy, leave about Janardhan Reddy and Dhanunjaya Reddy sustained simple injuries which are lacerations.

¶18

10. The learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail did not advert to these aspects of the propensity of the crime. No doubt these are case and counter so far as incident of 24-04-2014 is concerned. But so far as incident of 23-04-2014 concerned there is no counter case from A-1 but for the crime covered by Cr.No.42 of 2014. The report covered by Cr.No.43 of 2014 also speaks it is the accused party attacked the de facto complainant and their family members at the house of de facto complainant on 24-04-2014 not to mention even on 23-40-2014 all raided their house armed with weapons. When such is the case, merely there are civil disputes or differences that is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. In the factual back ground, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have granted anticipatory bail. It is the main core of contention now seeking cancellation of bail orders in both the crimes favoured the accused.

¶19

11. In fact it is brought to the notice of the Court that the bail orders conditions are obeying and after the occurrence and grant of bail there are no worth post bail concession abuse and these accused persons as what the de facto complainant lodged by report for the occurrence on 14-07-2014 on 15-07-2014 to the police by accused persons came and threatened to do away is not supported by any acknowledgment or sending any registered post as also

¶20

submitted by learned Public Prosecutor of no such report received as per the instructions of said police. It is from this, whether the bail orders that can be cancelled or not and to take care of noninterference with witnesses and not to abuse the concession of bail and to face the trial by cooperating for investigation by accused can be sub-served to meet the ends of justice. As grant or refusal of bail is one thing and cancellation of bail is virtually more onerous, while taking away personal liberty concession already conferred in favour of the accused.

¶21

12. Having regard to the above to sub-serve the ends of justice rather than cancellation, the anticipatory bail orders are modified by adding additional conditions with the already imposed conditions of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and attending to the police station once in a week as follows:-

¶22

[1] The bonds to be obtained is not only to appear before the Court pending investigation and after filing of final report in the form of charge sheet or the like for enquiry or pre committal enquiry before said Court, but also thereafter on committal before the Court of Sessions or by virtue of any transfer of proceedings for want of jurisdiction or otherwise before any other Court and even after trial before such Court to appear before provisional or appellate Court or other superior Court - vide decision - Pre-Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur vs State of Delhi 1982[2]APLJ 43(SC); so that at stage of committal or other proceedings obtaining of fresh bond from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and solvency earlier produced are ratifying and in existence and enforceable, without even insisting their further presence, serves the purpose. Such recourse quickens the proceedings at such committal or other stages without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of Section 437A CrPC.

¶23

[2] Respondents shall report before the Station House Officer, concerned on every Sunday till filing of the charge

¶24

sheet and thereafter once in a month on 1^st Sunday till completion of trial/enquiry between 10.00 and 11.00 AM for assurance of his availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses.

¶25

[3] Respondents shall not enter the area where the victim and witnesses reside, until further orders being passed by the learned Magistrate relaxing the same empowering him by virtue of this order.

¶26

[4] Respondents shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not their bail shall be cancelled forthwith, without any further order so that, the Magistrate can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439 [2] CrPC. delegated to the learned Magistrate by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Magistrate.

¶27

[5] Respondents shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge.

¶28

[6] Respondents shall furnish their full address with property and Bank Account particulars and submit their passport if any, by the next hearing date or by such time being granted by the Magistrate Court concerned (for collecting by police as part of their duty to investigate-also the means of accused and to furnish the same in the final report of investigation to enable the trial court in the event of considering the need of awarding compensation under section 357 CrPC. So to award from such material and evidence, apart from securing presence and obtaining of bond with sureties under section 437A CrPC. etc.), failing which it is open to the learned Magistrate concerned by virtue of the power conferred by this order to cancel the bail.

¶29

[7] The bail granted is since a regular one till end of trial (without prejudice to the right to cancel meanwhile in case of need and/or for non-compliance of conditions supra) any absence of petitioners as accused for hearing/enquiry or trial, issuance of non bailable warrant-NBW (unless cancelled before execution) and even its execution and production of accused as per the NBW; that does not tantamount to cancellation of bail including from the wording of Sec.439(2)

¶30

CrPC. and as such in such event no fresh bail application can be entertained. As it tantamounts to only cancellation of bail bonds earlier executed, (leave about the power of the court to issue surety notices by forfeiting bonds and for imposing penalty on the bonds forfeited); the proper course is to direct the accused to work out the remedy to pay penalty on the previous forfeited bonds as per Section 441 to 446 CrPC. and to submit fresh solvency with self bond for enlarging him by release from custody on payment of penalty of the earlier bonds forfeited without need of enforcing against earlier sureties again.

¶31

[8] In the event of the police making out a case for police custody for the purpose of interrogation, such of the respondents shall be liable to be taken to police custody for facilitating the further investigation remained if any, with the permission of the Magistrate concerned who can grant such police custody within 15 days from today subject to necessary precautions and instructions as per the constitutional bench expression of Apex Court in guideline No.iv in Gurbaksh

¶32

Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab^[1] .

¶33

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶34

Date: 09-09-2014 Nvl

¶35

[1] (1980)2 SCC 565

G.R.Janardhanareddy v. C.Kundanandan Reddy , C.K.N.Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.R.Janardhanareddy v. C.Kundanandan Reddy , C.K.N.Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arcapati Ranga Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

E. Mahendar Goud S/o. Narsimulu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Yarasani Yesu Ratnam Vs Pothineni Hanumantha Rao

Sivarathri Mallikarjuna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kaki Nagaraju, Vs The State of Telangana

P.Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs The State of A.P.