Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 528 OF 2020
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 7053 OF 2013
Gali Janardhan Reddy ..Appellant (S)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh ..Respondent (S)
WITH
DIARY NO. 11949 OF 2021
Gali Janardhan Reddy ..Appellant (S)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh ..Respondent (S)
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
M. R. Shah, J.
Digitally signed by
SNEHA
Date: 2022.10.10
17:05:16 IST
Reason:
1.
Present application has been preferred by the applicant
2
– original accused for an appropriate order of
modification of condition No. of the order dated
(c)
28.01.2015 passed by this Court in Special Leave
Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013 to the extent permitting the
applicant to enter, stay and function in the Districts of
Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and
Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in RC 17(A)/2009
CBIHYD dated 07.12.2009 as amended on 05.09.2011,
for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409,
468, 411, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 read
with Rules 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. That,
the applicant – accused was arrested by the CBI on
05.09.2011. Prior to coming to this Court, the applicant
– accused approached the learned trial Court as well as
the High Court for the grant of regular bail on number
of occasions. The said request of the applicant – accused
was rejected inter alia on the ground that grant of bail to
the applicant – accused may impede fair and
uninfluenced investigation. That, when the applicant –
accused lastly approached the High Court in the year
2013 by way of filing Criminal Petition No.3632/2013,
vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 , considering
the gravity of the allegations leveled against the
3
applicant – accused, his influential status and the CBI
indicated a reasonable apprehension that the accused is
likely to influence the investigation if enlarged on bail,
the High Court rejected the bail application. The
applicant approached this Court by way of Special Leave
Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013. By an order dated
20.01.2015, the order which is sought to be now
modified, this Court had released the applicant on bail
subject to following conditions:
“a) He shall surrender his passport, if not
already surrendered, to the learned Principal
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. If he
has already surrendered his passport before
the learned Principal Special Judge, that fact
should also be supported by an affidavit;
b) He shall not leave the country without
the leave of the learned Principal Special
Judge;
c) He shall not visit the Districts of Bellary
in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram
and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh;
d) He shall cooperate with the Court in the
smooth process of trial and its early
4
conclusion;
e) He shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade such person from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to tamper with the
evidence;
f) He shall remain present before the
learned Principal Special Judge on the dates
fixed for hearing of the case without fail. If he
requires to remain absent, he shall take prior
permission of the learned Principal Special
Judge and in case of unavoidable
circumstances for remaining absent, he shall
immediately appropriately intimate the learned
Principal Special Judge and also to the
Superintendent, CBI and request that he may
be permitted to be present through the
counsel.
g) Insofar as the surety amount is
concerned, the petitioner shall execute a bond
with two solvent sureties, in a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten lakhs only) each.
5
h) If, for any reason the petitioner fails to
comply with all the conditions as stipulated
above, the respondents are at liberty to
approach this Court for modification / recall of
the order granting bail to the petitioner.
10. The grant of bail to the petitioner shall be
subject to any other cases that are pending against
the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is yet to be
granted bail by the appropriate court(s).”
3. Present application has been preferred by the applicant
– accused to modify and/or delete condition No.
(c)
reproduced hereinabove and thereby permit him to
enter, stay and function in the Districts of Ballery in
Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and
Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
4. At this stage it is required to be noted that in the year
2016 a similar request was made to delete the
conditions that were imposed while granting bail. By an
order dated 01.07.2016, this Court dismissed the said
application, however, directed the trial Court to make an
endeavour to complete the trial expeditiously. That,
thereafter, one another application was made being
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6534/2017 for
modification of the condition imposed while granting
6
bail which came to be rejected by this Court vide order
dated 09.05.2017. That, thereafter, the present
application has been preferred. By an order dated
19.08.2021, this Court while adjourning the application
to third week of November, 2021, has modified and
substituted the condition No. (c) as under:
“(c)As and when the petitioner proposes to
visit any of the following districts, being
District Ballery in Karnataka and
Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra
Pradesh, he shall give prior intimation to the
Superintendent of Police of the concerned
district of the date when he proposes to go to
the district and further he shall also give
prior intimation to the concerned
Superintendent of Police of the date of his
departure from the said district.”
Condition No.(h) imposed in the order
dated 20.01.2015 is reiterated.”
This Court has also observed that the trial Court
shall make endeavour to proceed with the trial
expeditiously.
5. Thereafter, the present application is notified before the
Bench for further hearing.
7
6. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate has
appeared on behalf of the applicant – accused and Ms.
Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of
the respondent – CBI.
7. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the applicant has vehemently submitted
that after the initial order was passed by this Court in
the year 2015 granting bail on the conditions mentioned
in the said order, the applicant has visited Bellary on 8
to 9 occasions pursuant to the permissions granted by
this Court and during the said visits, the applicant has
never violated any of the conditions imposed by this
Court in the bail order. It is submitted that in past more
than 6 to 7 years since the bail has been granted, the
applicant has not violated any of the conditions as
imposed. It is submitted that the trial has not proceeded
further for which the applicant is not at all responsible.
It is submitted that the delay in the trial is not
attributable to the applicant. It is, therefore, requested
to modify the condition No. (c) as mentioned in the order
dated 20.01.2015 and permit the applicant to enter,
stay and function in the Districts of Bellary in
Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and
Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
7.1 In the alternative it is prayed to continue modification of
condition No. (c) as per the order passed by this Court
8
on 19.08.2021.
8. Present application is vehemently opposed by Ms.
Madhavi Divan, learned ASG. It is vehemently submitted
that CBI has strong apprehension that if the condition
No. (c) so imposed by this Court in the order dated
20.01.2015 is modified and/or substituted, the
applicant may influence the witnesses which may
ultimately affect the trial and the judicial process. It is
submitted that in past, attempts were made to influence
even the Judicial Officers which is already on record. It
is submitted that despite the orders passed by this
Court, the trial is not proceeding because of the conduct
on the part of the accused persons by filing one after
another discharge applications.
9. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has submitted that
therefore in case condition No. (c) of the order dated
20.01.2015 is modified, there would be serious threat to
the witnesses because of the power and influence that
the applicant is having. It is submitted that still as and
when there is any emergency the applicant may still
move this Court for appropriate permission which may
be considered on case to case basis and therefore, to
that extent, the interest of the applicant can be taken
care of.
9
10. In response, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior
Advocate in the alternative has submitted that as the
daughter of the applicant has recently delivered a child
at Bengaluru and now she is at Bellary, the applicant
may be permitted to visit and stay at Bellary atleast for
a period of four weeks to be with his daughter.
11. On the aforesaid alternative prayer, Ms. Madhavi Divan,
learned ASG has pointed out that in fact the daughter of
the applicant had delivered the child at Bengaluru and
she was never at Bellary. It is submitted that only after
present application was heard by this Court on
29.09.2022, in the evening the daughter of the applicant
is shifted to Bellary. Therefore, it is prayed to consider
the aforesaid conduct on the part of the applicant.
12. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the applicant and Ms. Madhavi
Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the CBI at
length. We have considered the submissions made on
behalf of the respective parties. We have considered the
material on record.
13. The applicant is facing the trial for very serious offences
punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468,
411, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 read
with Rules 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and
10
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The
investigation was carried out by the CBI. Most of the
witnesses are from Bellary in Karnataka and District of
Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
Taking into consideration the apprehension on the part
of the CBI that if the applicant is allowed to enter, stay
and function in the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and
District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra
Pradesh and that there are all possibilities of applicant
influencing and/or tampering with the witnesses, this
Court while granting bail imposed condition No. (c)
restraining the applicant from entering into the Districts
of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram
and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh. In past, the
apprehensions are proved to be true and even the
judicial officers were influenced / tried to be influenced.
There is a serious apprehension on the part of the CBI /
investigating agency that if condition No. (c) is relaxed
and/or modified and/or substituted, there would be
threat to the witnesses because of the power and
influence that the applicant is having. It is very
unfortunate that even after a period of 11 years of filing
the FIR and despite the observations made by this Court
directing the trial to be expedited, the trial has not
begun. From the material on record, it appears that the
trial has not begun on the ground that the accused / co
accused are filing the applications for discharge one
11
after another, due to which the trial has not begun. In a
case like this, it is always in the larger interest that the
trial is concluded at the earliest. Early conclusion of the
trial would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery
system. The trial must come to its logical end at the
earliest. Any attempt on the part of the accused to delay
the trial of serious offences is to be dealt with iron
hands. More the delay, more the possibilities of
influencing the witnesses. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that as despite the observations made by this
Court directing to expedite the trial, as the trial has not
begun, now, a direction is to be issued to the trial Court
to begin the trial on day to day basis and once the trial
begins the applicant – accused may be restrained from
entering into the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and
District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra
Pradesh looking to the strong apprehension on the part
of the CBI recorded hereinabove.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
we dispose of / dismiss the present application for
modification / substitution of condition No. (c) in the
order dated 28.01.2015 passed by this Court in Special
Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 7053/2013. However, we direct
as under:
(1) Learned trial Court / Special Court is hereby
directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis
12
from 09.11.2022. We direct the learned Special
Court to conclude the trial within a period of six
months from 09.11.2022 without fail;
(2)
That the prosecution may examine first, the
witnesses from Bellary in Karnataka and District of
Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh
as far as possible. It will be the duty of the
investigating agency to keep all the witnesses
present for the purpose of their depositions /
examination in chief;
(3)
All the accused are hereby directed to cooperate
the learned Special Court in conclusion of the trial
at the earliest and within the period stipulated
hereinabove and any attempt on the part of the
accused to delay the trial shall be viewed very
seriously;
(4) As it is reported that the daughter of the applicant
has delivered a child recently and now she is at
Bellary, the applicant is permitted to stay at
Bellary upto 06.11.2022. It is specifically directed
that the applicant shall move out of Bellary and
remain out of Bellary in Karnataka and Districts of
Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh
from 07.11.2022 till the trial is concluded.
13
15. With the aforesaid directions, present application shall
stand disposed of. Registry is directed to send the
present order to the learned Special Court forthwith.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
NEW DELHI,
OCTOBER 10, 2022