In a criminal petition under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Telangana granted bail to the petitioner, accused number 18, in a murder case involving inter-caste marriage dispute, despite the charge of providing shelter to principal offenders.
Petitioner granted bail on Rs. 50,000 bond with two sureties.
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.
[31s8 ]
IN T}IE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI / CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 362 OF 2O2L
Between:
Gudur Sandeep Reddy, S/o Madhava Reddy
Petitioner/Accused No. 18
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.
Respondent/ Com plainant
Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/ Accused No.18 on bail, in relating to S.C,No. 5 of 2021, on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions(FTC), Ranga Reddy District, at L,B,Nagar,
The petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI KATIKA RAVINDERREDDY Advocate for the Petitioner and the AssistantPUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Sole Respondent, theCourt made the following.
ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.362 of 202L
ORDER:
This Crimjnai Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/A-18 to release him on bail in S.C.No.S of 2021. on the file of the IX Additional District Judge-cum-FTC Court, Ranga Reddy District, which was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 120-8(1), 302,364,379, 448, 449,341,342,352,323 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C
As per the charge sheet, the case oI the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased fell in love with the de facto complainant and decided to marry. They belong to different castes. The deceased belongs to 'Vsya Community' and the de facto complainant belongs to 'Reddy Community'. The parents of the de facto complainant were not happy with the said love affair and not interested in the proposal of rhe de facto complainant to marry the deceased. The parents of the de facto complainant with the help of their relatives, who are also accused in the present crime, kied to convince the de facto complainant and the deceased. They have forcibly taken the cell phone of tl:re de facto complainant. For sometime they kept silent. Thereafter, ttre de facto complainant and the deceased continued to meet each other. They have also threatened the deceased and his father. But, there is no change in the attitude of the deceased. l'he
t
2
deceased and the de facto complainant have continued their love affair and ultimately they got married on 10.06.2020 against the wishes of the parents of the de facto complainant. Due to the same, the parents of the de facto complainant were not happy and they felt insult in the society. They underwent trauma and they have tried to convince her daughter. But, there is no change in the decision of the de facto complainant. Therefore, the parents of the de facto complainant have hatched a plan to do away the life of the deceased. Accordingly, they have murdered the deceased in connivance with the other accused for marrying their daughter, which is an intercaste marriage.
Heard leamed Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.
Leamed Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that he hasprovided accouunodation and food to A-1 to A-4 even afterknowingthat they have involved in the above said crime. The petitioneris innocentof the alleged offence and he has beenfalsely implicated in this case, without ascertaining the facts in view of thesensationof the case. It is further submitted that the contents ofthe complaintas well as the remand report do not attract theingredients of the offences as alleged. A plain reading of the remandrePort clearly shows that the petitioner has nothingto do with the alleged offenceand evenas
tIIL-r!
3
per the version of the police, the petitioner has provided the dirrner to A-1 to A-4 even after knowing that they have involved in the above said offence but the police in a routine manner has charged the petitioner with all the sections which are charged as against the other accused, u,hich is nothing but illegal and bad in law. The remand report as well as the charge sheet shows that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence in any manner much less in the conspiracy and it is eviclent florn the investigation that the petitioner has nothing to do with the murder of the deceased but surprisingly the poiice have charged the petitioner with all the sections. It is also submitted that the petitioner is 1aw abiding citizen and her does not have criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that there are changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail applications and now the entire investigation is over, question of tampering witnesses does not arise as the police have already filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance and numbered as S.C. It is also submitted that more than 150 days the petitioner is rn jail and since there is no specific overt act against the petitioner, kereping the petitioner in jait is nothing but an abuse of process of the la'w.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application cr:ntending that the petitioner has provided accommodation and food to A-1 to A-4 even after knowing that they have killed the deceased and, therefore, he is not entitled for bail
II t
4
As seen from the contents o[ the charge sheet, there is no specific overt act against the petitioner except the allegation that he has provided accommodation and food to A-1 to A-4 after commission of crime. Except providing food and accommodation, 'there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any nexus with the alleged conspiracy of other accused. Apart from that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.09.2020.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitloner is in judicial custody snce 24.09.2020, without adverting to the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A,18.
The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner is dtected
to be released on bail, subject to the foilowing terms and conditions:
(i) The petitioner sha11 be released on bail on his executing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
(ii) The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted to him.
the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iv) The petitioner shall personally appear before the Court
concerned on each date of hearing
SDtN CHAN DRASHEKARRAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SE N OFFICER
To,
I
r''
I
a
, I, Ii i I I I
HIGH COURT
GSDJ
DATED:0810312021
ORDER
CRLP.No.362of 2021
.i. .:.,
a
In )
BAIL o'. .s$
\F"
/
s
,.) 4,',';/
o ,:t
1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused who has been in judicial custody for over 150 days facing charges of murder and abetting.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gudur Sandeep Reddy
The State of Telangana
G Sri Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
