Dismissed

E. Vijaypal Reddy v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC17 Aug 2021CRLP/2894/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent in a disproportionate assets case. While allegations of witness intimidation and private complaints against the respondent were noted, the Court held that the trial court had already correctly dismissed similar grounds, finding no cogent or overwhelming circumstances justifying cancella

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail was dismissed.

E. Vijaypal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI}

¶5

CRIMI NAL PETIT^{ION NO: 289 40F} 21

¶6

Between:

¶7

E. Viiavoal Reddv,^{S/o. Anna Reddy, Aged about 52 years' Occ Business' Fl/o' Flat} No.ZOt,'Xotnapet,^{Rachakonda District'}

¶8

.,.PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

TheStateofTelangana,RepbyPublicProsecutor,AnilCorruptionBureau,High Court of Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶11

2 Dasari Bhoomaiah,^{S/o Rangaiah,Age} Qg^years' .^{Occ lnspector of Police} ffi6i^{R,;. "iin6.)-a+sri,'-vi'rJirmpiia,Ne6rpadmanayakaFunction Hall,} Ka rimnaga^r.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P,Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased tocancelthebailgrantedtotherespondentNo,2inCrI.M.P.No.TS620lSin Cr.No.10/RCA.clU-ACB/2o18dt,18/09/20lBonthefileoflAdditionalSpecialJudge for S.P.E. and A.C.B Cases^{cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court'} Hyderabad.

¶14

A, NO oF2 1

¶15

Petition under^{Section482 of cr.P.cpraying thatin the circumstancesstated} intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmaybepleased to^grant leave^{to file cancellatron of bail of the respondentNo.2 in crl.M.P.No.786} t2018 in cr.No.1o/RCA-C|U-ACB/2o18^{dt.18.09.20180n the fiie of I Additional} Special Judge for S.P.E.^{and A.c.B casescum V Additionalchlef Judge,city civil} Court, Hyderabad.

¶16

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the argumentsof Sri Rajagopallavan} Tayi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri^{T.L.Nayan Kumar, Addl. SC cumSpecial} Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^No.1 and^{Sri A. Gangadhar,} Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

-.+'ll}

¶19

HON'BLE IUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2894 of 2021

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present Criminal^petition is filed under Section a39 e) of Cr.P.C. seeking canceilation of bail granted to the 2.d respondent herein in Crl.M.P.No.786 of 20"18 datecr 18.09.2018 on the file of the I- Additional Special Judge for S.p.E. anct A.C.B. Cases_cum-V_ Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyclerabad.

¶23

Hearcl learnecl Counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1.t responclent, le arned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the reccrd.

¶24

A perusal of the material on record would shoy, that a case in Crime No.10/RCA-ACB-CIU /2018 was registerecl aqainst the 2n,r respondent herein with an aliegation that he had ar:quired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Subsequently, the petitioner was^. a S on 20.07.2078 and produced before the Court. By an order, dated 18.09.2018, the I-Additional Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases-cum-V-Additional Chlel Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, granted regular bail to the 2n,t respondent/ Accused Officer on his executing a persrrnal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties to the like amount each:;ubject to the following conditions.

¶25

a) That the Accused Officer shail not influence witnesses or interfere with tE^{jilvestigation} in any manner.

¶26

¶27

b) He shall not^{leave India withoutpermission of the Court'}

¶28

c) He shall deposit^{his passport if any before the Court or file an} affidavit if he^{does not} Possess^{any such} PassPort^forthwith'

¶29

d) He shal1 attend^{the DSP,ACBOffice, CIU, Hyderabad, oncein} a week on every^{Saturdayin between10'00A'M', to 05 00} P.M., and co-oPerate^{for further investigation'}

¶30

Nearly after lapse^{of two and half years,the present Criminal} Petition came to be^{filed by the petitionerseekingcancellation of bail} granted to the^{2ndresPonclent.}

¶31

Learned Counsel^{for the petitionerwould submit that the 2n'i} respondent having^{an impressionthat this petitioneris inshumental} for registering the^{aforesaidcrirne against him,started threatening'} pressurizing and^{influencirrgthe petitioner, who is one of the} witnesses in the aforesaid^{crime.He also submitsthat the petitioner} initially lodged^{a complaintagainst the 2nd respondent beforethe} Chaitanyapuri^{Police Station,which was registered as a casein} Crime No.18 of^{2020 for the offencespunishabieundersections506} and 504 of LP.C.,^{and filed charge sheet against the 2"d resPondent'} He further submits^{that the2nd resPondent again hatcheda plan by} giving supari to^{hired goondas in order to eiiminate the petitioner} and as such^{the petitionerlodgeda further complaintagainst the 2nd} respondent,^{which was registered as a case in Crime No 118 of 2020} for the offence^{punishable under Section 385 of I'P'C He also} submits that^{the petitioner reliably learnt that' the 2nd respondent'} along with^{ACP, Huzurabad, obtained call record of the petitioner}

¶32

¶33

and his^{whereabouts and as such the petitioner lodgeda complaint} before the^{ACB, who in turn conductedthe investigati<'n and has} come to^{the conclusion that the 2nd respondentobtain'rdthe cail} records^{deceitfully and as such the ACB filed Crl'M'P'No 519 of 2020} before the^{trial Court, seeking cancellationof bail grante'l to the2na} respondent^{and by an order dated19'01 2021' the learnedtrial Court} dismissed^{the said application He furthersubmits that the} petitioner^{is apprehenclingdanger to his life in the hands of the2nd} respondent,^{as such he filedthe Present petitionto carcel the bail} granted to^{the 2na respondentand if the bail is not cancelled'the} petitioner wiil^{be put to irreparable loss and injuryHe also submits} that the^{2nd respondenthas violated all the conditionsimposedwhile} enlarging^{him on bail, as such, the baii granted to him needs to be} cancelled.

¶34

Learned Special^{PublicProsecutor apPearingfor the 1s} respondent^{wouid submit that the 2nd resPondent' after his release} on bail,^{has startecl threateningthe witnessesand two cases have} alreacly^{been registered againstthe 2nd respondent arrd if the 2nd} respondent^{is allowed to continue on bail' he will inter:ere with the} investigation^{and that there is a danger to the life of the petitioner'} who is one^{of the witnessesin the aforesaidcrime'}

¶35

Learned^{Counsei appearingfor the /ncl lsspenllsnt/accused} would submit^{that the groundsraisedin the petitio n are vague'} baseless^{and without iota of &idence' He further sutmitsthat the}

¶36

¶37

petitioner has mislepresented^{and suppressed severalcrucialfacts} before this Court and that the^{petitionis filedbasing on the frivolous} and false cases registered^{againstthe 2n't respondent and that the 2"4} respondent has already challenged^{the veracity of the crime thatwas} registered before the State^{Human Rights Commissionvide Case} No.1390 of 2020, dated 02.06.2020.^{He also submits that the 2"d} respondent has already lodged^{a complaintbeforeKarimnagar II} Town Police, against the^{petitioner herein andone P.VenugopalRao} (Retired Assistant Commissioner of^{Police),and one Shanigala} Suresh, for the offences^{punishableunder Sections120-8 and307 of} I.P.C., but the S.H.O., who^{was under the influenceof the said} P.Venugopal Rao, deliberately^{failed to register a case, as such,the} 2nd respondent filed a private^{complaint and that on the reference} made by the learned IlI Additional Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class,} Karimnagar, the same^{was registeredas a case in Crime No.499 of} 2O2O. Again the 2nd resPondent^{has filed a complaintagainst the} petitioner and the said P.Venugopal^{Rao and as the samewas not} considered, the 2"d respondent^{has filed another} Private^complaint, which was referred to the^{poiice anda casein Crime No.500 of 2020} has been registered.^{Therefore,he submits that the policeare} delibelately refusing to^{registerthe complaintslodged by the 2n't} respondent. He further submits^{that there were disputes between} the 2nd respondent and^{the petitionerand the cases were registered} at the instance of the petitioner^{and the said P.VenugopalRao. it is}

¶38

¶39

further stated that all the allegations raised in the Criminal petition are false and hence the same is liable to be clismissecl

¶40

It is well established law that different yards:icks have to be adopted for cancellation of bail and interference with an order granting bail. The Court should take into considerat.on the post bail conduct and supervening circumstances for decidinll as to whether it requires cancellation of bail.

¶41

In Sanjay Chandra a, Central Bureau of lnatstigationl the Apex Court held as under:

¶42

"ln bail applications, generally, it has been laicl down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to s,:cure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by rt:asonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither purritive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be conr;idered a punishment, unless it can be requirec-l to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called up.on. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principal that punishment begins after conviction, and that ever.,, man is deemecl tb be innocent until cluly tried ancl cluly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completror of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands, that some unconvicted person:; should be heltl in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operai:ive test. In India, it would be quite contrary to the corrcept of personal libertv enshrined in the Const.itution t 1at any person should be punished in respect of any matt<.r, upon which, he hft^*not been convicted or that in any

¶43

'^{(2012) 1 scc 40}

¶44

¶45

circumstances,^{he should be deprivedof his liberty upon} only the belief^{thathe will tamper withthe witnesses if left} at liberty, save^{in the most extraordinarycircumstances'} Apart from the^{questionof prevention being the obiect of} refusal of bail,^{onc must not losesight of the fact thatany} imprisonment^{beforeconviction hasa substantialpunitive} content and it^{wouldbe irnproper for any Court to refuse} bail as a mark^{of tlisapprovalo{ former conductwhether the} accused has been^{convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to} an unconvicted^{person for the purposeof giving him a taste} of imprisonment^{asa lesson.}

¶46

ln Subhendu^Mishra 7) Subrat Kumar^{Misfua2 the APex}

¶47

Court held as^under:

¶48

"..... .......'ery cogent^{andoverwhelming} circumstances^{are necessary for an order directingthe} cancellation of thc^{bail, alreadygranted' Cenerally} speaking, the^{grouncls for cancellation of bail'broadly} (illustrative and exhaustive)^{are: interferenceor attempt to} interfere with^{the due course of adrninistrationof justice or} evasion or attempt^{to evade the cluecourse of justice or} abuse of^{the concession granteclto the accused in anv} manner. The^{satisfactionof the Court' on the basis of} material placed on^{the record of the possibilityof the} accused absconding^{is yet anotherreasoniustifyingthe} cancellation of^{bail. However, bail once granted should not} be cancelled^{in a mechanical manner without considering} whether any supervening^{circumstances haverenderedit no} longer conducive^{to a fair trialto allow the accused to retain} his freedom^{by enioyingthe concession of bail duringthe} trial.^"

¶49

'^{1999 crl.L.J.4063}

¶50

¶51

ln Kanuar Singh^{Meenaa. State of Roia:;than3' the Apex}

¶52

Court held as^uncier:

¶53

"While cancelling^{bail under Section"tllt (2) Cr'PC'} the primary^{considerationswhich w'eigh with the Court are} whether'the accused^{is tikely to tamPer with the evidenceor} interfere or attemPt^{to interferewith the due course of justice} or evade the due^{course of} iustice.^{But, that is not all The} High court or^{the SessionsCourt can cancel the bail even in} cases whete the^{order granting bail suffers {rom serious} in{irmities resulting^{in miscarriage of} iustice^{lf the Court} granting bail ignores^{relevant materialsindicatingprima facie} involvement of the^{accusedor takes into accountirrelevant} material, which^{has no relevance to the question of grant of} bail to the accused,^{the High Court or the SessionsCourt} would be^justified in^{cancellingthe bail. Such orders are} against the well-recognized^{principles underlyirrgthe power} to grant bail. Such^{orders are legalty infirmand vulnerable} leading to miscarriage^{of justiceancl absenceof supervening} circumstances^{such as the propensity of tht: accusedto} tamper with the^{evideuce, to flet' fromjustice , etc , r'r'oulcl} not cleter the Court^{from cancellirrg the bail.Thc High Court} or the Sessions Court^{is bounclto cancel suc r bail orders} particularly when they^{are passeclreleasing the accused} involved in lreinous^{crimesbecausethey ultim;rtely result in} weakening the prosecution^{case and haveaclverse impactof} the society."

¶54

It is a settled law^{that bail granted can brl cancelled on the} ground which has^{arisen after the bail wasgranted' It is generally} presumecl that at^{the time of hearing of the b;ril application,the} prosecution has raised^{all possible groundswhic['r couldgo against}

¶55

I2013 (1) ALD (crl.) 85

¶56

¶57

the accused in^{the matter of bail and, therefore,whenonce bail has} been granted to^{the accused,the prosecution cannot have the bail} cancelled on some^{circumstanceswhich may have existed before the} grant of bail.

¶58

The ground of^{cancellationof bail and glounds of rejectionof} bail are two^{different circutnstances and hencethe approach of the} Court should^{also be different. At the time of hearing the bail} application, the^{Court looks at the possibilitiesof the violationof} bail conditions^{and the Courthas to be more open and flexible'} whereas while hearing^{the cancellationapplication'the Courthas to} be more rigid^{and it has to examinenot only the possibility of} violations but^{whether the actual violationhas takenplace or not'} The Court should^{be more rigidhere and actual proof of violationis} required.

¶59

In the instant^{case,two and half years back' bail has been} granted to the^{2nd respondent in a case of disproportionateassets'} As the case was^{registereclwith regard to the disproportionate} assets, there cannot^{be any privatewitnessesand the prosecution} would collect the^{officialrecords with regardto the income and} expenditure of^{the 2na respondent and they would supplythe data} on the basis of^{the official records'Further,a perusal of the material} on record would^{show that earlier the 1't resPondent/ ACB has filed} Cr1.M.P.No.51 9^{ot2020 seekingcancellation of the bail granted to the}

¶60

¶61

2,,d respondent ancl by an orcler, daterl j9.01.2021, the learned trial Judge^while dismissing the said petition, observecl ..s under:

¶62

"22. Except the allegation against the responclent that he has abused one E.Vijayapal Reddy (L.W.1) against whom he got registered two crirninal cases, there is no other material to believe that the respondent herein interfered with the investigation and threatened the witnessr:s. As per the documents filed by the respondent, it is very clear that he has also approached the Human Rights Comm ssion and filed an application to quash the proceetiings, acart from filing two private complaints against the said E.Vijayapal Reddy and others. As per the record, the two private complaints filed by the respondent were referrurl to the police concerned and two F.l.R.s were registered. It may be true that the respondent obtained call data recorcls of one of the witnesses of the prosecution. Simplv because he has obtained the call clata record, it cannot be said that he is trying to influence the witnesses or threaten the u.itnesses. Since the case is under investigation, it is not known whether there are any other clisputes between the respondent and witnesses.

¶63

The cbunsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent was not found in possession of any disproportionate assets. The case was registered only on the basis of the statement made by E.Vijayapal Re<tdy. There were disputes between the respondent and said E.Vijayapal Reddy and Venugopal, who worked as ACp, L.B.Nagar. The case is registered at the instance of the above said persons. The main ground for asklng the cancellation of bail is the alleged interference of resp ondent in the investigation and it is pleadecl that the resporLdent is threatening the witnesses. In support of his clajm, the petitioner has filecl the copies of cases filerl at the. instance

¶64

¶65

of one o{^the Prosecution^{witnesses'The respondenthas} claimed that^{he has got disputeswith the said witness and} one Venugopal,^{who worked as A'C P , L'G Nagar' The} present case^{was registeredabout morethan twoyears a8o} and except^{the above saicl two cases,thereis no other} material to^{believetl-re respondentis tryingto influence the} rt,itnesses or tlteatening^{the other witnesses Since the case} registered against^{therespondent isabouthis} disproportionate^{assets tl-reremay not be any private} witnesses and^{the prosecutionwould collect evidence about} the income,^{expenditure of the respondentfromofficial} witnesses, who^{would supplythe data on the basis of} official records.^{The possibility of existenceof some other} disputes between^{the respondent and saidE Viial'apal} Reddy caunot^{be ruledout now'"}

¶66

From the above,^{it is ciear that the 1't resPondenthas already} filed the^{petitionseeking cancellationof bail before the trial Court} with the same^{set of grounds and after evaluating the materialon} record, the^iearnedtrial Judge^{has rightly dismissed the said Petition} by giving cogent^{reasons.Hence,I do not find any new groundto} cancel the bail^{granted to the 2ua resPondent since the power of} cancellation^{of bail mustbe exercisedwith care at-rdcircumspection} of cogent ancl^{ovent'helming circurnstanceswhichare necessaryfor} an order seeking^{cancellationof bail' Where there is no violationof} the terms of^{order granting bail, canceilationis not iustifiedThe bail} already granted^{should not be cancelledin a routine marrreras it} jeopardizes the personal^{liberty of the person'}

¶67

t--__

¶68

¶69

Having regarcl^{to the circumstances stated above and in view}

¶70

of the^{judgments of the Hon'ble SupremeCourtrefe::redto above'}

¶71

the Criminal^{Petitionis dismissed'}

¶72

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{if any,pending shalls} te nd closed. SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i /TRUE COPY' G

¶73

SECTION OFFICER

¶74

To,

¶75

The I Additional Special Judge for S.P.E & A,.C.B. Cases^{cum V Additional Chief} Judge, City Civil Court , Hyderabad.

¶76

The lnspector of Police, A.C.B., ClU, Hyderabad.

¶77

Two CCs to Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, High Court^{f or the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶78

One CC to Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate IOPUC]

¶79

One CC to Sri T. L. Nayan Kumar^(SC SPL PP ACB TS)^Ad'rocate [OPUC]

¶80

One CC to Sri A. Gangadhar, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶81

Two CD Copies B. One Spare Copy Kul gbr X

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1710812021

ORDER

L 5 l .t
vt
o AUE 2$t1 ci
L) 2 3
1.
t
s ?AT +l

¶86

CRLP.No.2894 of 2021

¶87

DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION

¶88

,-l
/1-

E. Vijaypal Reddy v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Vijaypal Reddy v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Manne Raghavendra Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Anumula Sangeetha Vs The State of Telangana

Sabavath Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Maloth Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Radhika Pandurangam Vs Mr. T.C.Pandurangam

Trivikram Rao Vs The State of Telangana