CRLP/15790/2014 of Anipaka Jadala Shiva, Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2014

ORDER:

The petitioners, who are A-7 to A-11 filed the presentapplication under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC seeking their release inconnection with Crime No. 100 of 2014 of Veldanda Police Station,Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offences punishable underSections 147, 148, 302, 307, 120-B read with 149 IPC and Section25(1) of Arms Act.

The case of prosecution as culled out from the remand casediary is as under :

On 21.09.2014 at about 3.30 p.m., L.W.1-GunagantiKrishnaveni, who is the wife of Yadaiah (hereinafter called asdeceased) gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Kalwakurthy,stating that on the same day around 1.00 p.m., while she along withthe deceased and their two children were proceeding to Kalwakurthyon a motorcycle, one car and motorcycles came behind them and hittheir motorcycle. Both of them fell down and when the deceasedstarted running away, the accused are alleged to have chased thedeceased and hacked him with knives and sickles causing death. Theinvestigation further reveal that previously A-1 and the deceased wereactively involved in Maoist activities and later gave up party activitiesand surrendered. It is alleged that they both maintained groups andwere having grudges against each other. In the recent GramPanchayat elections, the candidate who was supported by A-1 won asSarpanch. Subsequently, the deceased and his followers attacked A-6on the pretext that he was moving closely with A-1 and basing on thata Crime was registered against the deceased. Later A-1 was attacked during night time by some assailants and in respect of that incident acrime was also registered, in which A-1 strongly felt that there washand of the deceased in such attack. The deceased used to threatenA-2 to A-5 stating that they should not move with A-1, failing which hewould kill them. For which, A-1 to A-5 decided and hatched a plan toeliminate the deceased. As per their plan A-2 contacted his friends A-7to A-10 and asked them to kill the deceased for which they agreed todo so. On 21.09.2014 at about 12.40 p.m., when the deceased alongwith his wife and two children left Ajilapur on his motorcycle, A-2, A-4,A-5, A-7 to A-11 are alleged to have proceeded in a car and dashedthe motorcycle of the deceased from behind. After hitting themotorcycle, the deceased, his wife and children fell down and whenthe deceased was fleeing away, A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-8 came out of thecar and started chasing the deceased. A-7 is alleged to have givensickle blows twice on the back of the deceased, A-8 gave a blowon the head with a sickle, while A-9 to A-11 remained in the car with aplan to dash him with the car in case the deceased escapes. When thedeceased was lying in a pool of blood with severe injuries, theaccused left the place. Immediately, the deceased was shifted tohospital for treatment, where he succumbed to injuries. Basing onthese allegations, the above crime came to be registered against thepetitioners and other accused.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for therespondent/State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FirstInformation Report, given by the wife of the deceased who is aneyewitness to the incident, the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the report. According to her, only 12 named persons inthe First Information Report are alleged to have attacked thedeceased. According to her, the petitioners are falsely implicated in thecase.

Conclusion

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmits that though the wife of the deceased gave the names of 12persons, but the police during the course of investigation collectedevidence to show that these five petitioners played active role in thecommission of the offence. According to him, the confession of the coaccused clearly disclose the participation of the petitioners in thecommission of the offence. Since the case is at the stage ofinvestigation, he submits that the request of the petitioners may not beconsidered as there is every likelihood of petitioners evading theprocess of law.

The first information report, which was given by the wife of thedeceased, refers to involvement of 12 persons in the commission ofthe offence. But, however, during the course of investigation the policeafter examining 11 witnesses found that A-7 to A11 conspired withother accused in committing the offence. In fact the remand case diaryclearly discloses that on the date of incident A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-8came out of the car with hunting sickles and chased the deceased to alittle distance and when he was fleeing away to save his life, A-7 gavea sickle blow on the back of the deceased, while A-8 gave a sickleblow on the head of the deceased. A-4 and A-5 also gave sickleblows on the face of the deceased repeatedly. A-9 to A-11 remainedin the Car with a plan to dash him with the car in case, the deceasedescape the murderous attack. That being the position and as the caseis still at the stage of investigation, the request of the petitioners cannotbe considered though they are in Jail for more than two months. As held by the Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee[[1]],the period of detention cannot be a ground to releasethe petitioners on bail in cases of grave and heinous offences.

Since specific role is attributed to the petitioners and as theinvestigation is still pending, I am not inclined to grant bail to thepetitioners. However, the petitioners are at liberty to renew theirrequest before the Sessions Court after filing of the charge-sheet.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Dt:31.12.2014GM

________________________

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR