SUNEETHA NARREDDY versus Y S AVINASH REDDY & ANR on 24 April 2023

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from an order dated 18 April 2023 of a singleJudge of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal PetitionNo 3798 of 2023. The High Court was moved with an application for thegrant of Anticipatory bail to the first respondent under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure 1973[1] in connection with RC-04(S)/2020/SC-III/ND.

3. The deceased, YS Vivekananda Reddy, was found to havebeen murdered at his house at Pulivendula, Kadapa District of AndhraPradesh on the night intervening 14/15 March 2019. The deceased wasthe brother of Shri YS Rajasekhara Reddy, former Chief Minister of theundivided State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. A complaint was lodged by MV Krishna Reddy at 8.00 am on15 March 2019 at Pulivendula Urban Police Station which resulted inthe registration of Crime No 84/2019.

5. A Special Investigating Team was constituted by the DirectorGeneral of Police headed by the Additional Director General of Police(CID). The Special Investigating Team was reconstituted on 13 June2019 and 10 October 2019.

6. The appellant is the daughter of the deceased. The appellantinstituted a petition before the High Court seeking a transfer of theinvestigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation[2].

7. On 11 March 2020, the High Court directed that the CBI shallconduct further investigation in CR No 84/2019 of the Pulivendula UrbanPolice Station.

8. The CBI registered the crime as RC-04(S)/2020/SC-III/NDon 9 July 2020.

9. On 21 October 2021, the CBI submitted a charge sheet beforethe court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pulivendula naming fourpersons, namely, Yerra Gangi Reddy (Al), Yadati Sunil Yadav (A2), GajjalaUma Shankar Reddy (A3) and Shaik Dastagiri (A4) for commission of 1 “CrPC”

2 “CBI”

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aoffences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian PenalCode 1860. The charge sheet submitted by the CBI named among others,the first respondent, his father and two other persons as suspects in theconspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased.10. On 17 November 2021, the CBI arrested D. Siva ShankarBReddy.

12. On 31 January 2022, the CBI filed a supplementary chargesheet naming D. Siva Shankar Reddy as A5.

13. Apprehending that there was a serious danger to the life ofthe witnesses and that false complaints were being filed against theCofficers of the CBI, the appellant and her mother moved this Court seekingdirections for the transfer of the trial from the CBI Special Court Kadapa,Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court in Hyderabad or Delhi andfor a direction to the CBI to conclude the investigation in a time boundmanner.

D14. By an order dated 29 November 2022, this Court hastransferred the trial from Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad.

15. In the meantime, the CBI issued summons to the firstrespondent to appear before it on 23 January 2023. A fresh notice wasissued to the first respondent to appear on 16 February 2023 and againEon 6 March 2023. The first respondent has appeared before the CBI onseveral occasions.

16. The first respondent instituted a Writ Petition before the HighCourt. On 10 March 2023, the High Court directed the CBI to producethe entire record before it and directed it not to take any coercive stepsFagainst the first respondent, while ordering him to appear before theInvestigating Officer on 14 March 2023.

17. On 13 March 2023, the High Court reserved orders. On 17March 2023, the High Court disposed of IA Nos 1 and 2 in the WritPetition holding that it was not inclined to stay the examination of theGfirst respondent under Section 161 of the CrPC. While vacating theinterim order, the High Court, however, directed that the first respondentshall be examined within the sight of his advocate.

18. On 14 April 2023, the CBI arrested Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy.

19. On 15 April 2023, the father of the first respondent was arrestedHby the CBI.

20. On 16 April 2023, the CBI served a notice under Section 160of the CrPC on the first respondent to appear in its office on 17 April2023.

21. The first respondent moved an application for anticipatorybail.

22. The High Court by its order dated 18 April, 2023 directed thatthe first respondent shall attend the office of the CBI between 19 and 25April 2023; the questions and answers shall be in the printed/writtenform and a questionnaire may also be handed over to the first respondent.In the meantime, the High Court has directed that the first respondentshall not be arrested and directed the proceedings to stand over to 25April, 2023.

23. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 21 April 2023. Thefirst respondent accepted notice through learned counsel and has filed acounter affidavit in these proceedings.

24. We have heard Mr Sidharth Luthra, senior counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant, Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Ranjit Kumar,senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr TusharMehta, Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the secondrespondent.

25. During the course of the proceedings, the attention of theCourt has been drawn to the affidavit which was filed by the CBI in thewrit proceedings. Paragraphs 9, 16 and 45 of the affidavit filed by CBIare extracted below :-

“9That during the course of further investigation role of aclose associate of Petitioner/Y.S. Avinash Reddy, namelyD. Siva Shankar Reddy (A-5 and then General SecretaryYSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) was found in participation ofconspiracy for murder of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy and alsoin the destruction of evidence at the Scene of Crime. Further,it was also found that accused T. Gangi Reddy @ YerraGangi Reddy (A-1) also had actively participated in thedestruction of evidence at the Scene of Crime besides actof criminal intimidation to one of the eye-witnesses namelyB. Ranganna (Watchman of the house of deceased).Therefore, a Supplementary Charge-sheet dated 31.01.2022u/s 173(8) Cr. PC was filed before Ld. Court of Judicial A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Magistrate - First Class, Pulivendula against accused D.Siva Shankar Reddy (A-5) u/s 201 & 120-B r/w 302 & 201IPC. Further, accused T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy(A-1) was also charge sheeted for the offences u/s 201,506 & 120-B r/w 201 IPC in continuation to the first charge-sheet filed on 26.10.2021 by CBI.

xxx

xxxxxx

16. That during further investigation role of Petitioner/ Y.S.Avinash Reddy and others have emerged. Consequent toWrit Petition filed by the Petitioner/Y.S. Avinash Reddy, incompliance of the order dated 10.3.2023 of this Hon’bleCourt, the evidences in respect of the role of the Petitionerin murder of the deceased Shri YS Vivekananda Reddyhas been submitted before this Hon’ble Court in sealed coveras the further investigation in the case is still going on.

xxx

xxxxxx

45. In reply to Para 14, it is submitted that both acts involved inthe conspiracy i.e., the act of execution of murder and theacts of destruction of evidence at SoC were integral partof larger conspiracy, wherein none other than the petitionerY S Avinash Reddy was a beneficiary, in which the executionof murder was carried out by the accused namely YerraGangi Reddy (A-1), Yadati Sunil Yadav (A-2), Gajjala UmaSankar Reddy (A-3), and Shaikh Dasthagiri(A-4), whereasthe second part of the act i.e destruction of evidence at theScene of Crime was carried out at the behest of petitionerY S Avinash Reddy, Y S Bhaskar Reddy, D. Siva ShankarReddy (A-5) and Yerra Gangi Reddy (A-1) and in theirpresence and on their instructions, which is evident fromthe statements of several eye witnesses. Therefore,averments made in this Para attributing motive on the partof Smt Suneetha Reddy and her husband Shri N.RajaShekar Reddy behind the murder of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddyare baseless. Though during investigation, it has revealedthat Shri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy had married Smt. ShaikhShameem during the year 2010 and maintaining relationshipwith her, that about this marriage family members of Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy, especially Shri N. Siva Prakash Reddy, [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

were not happy, however, during investigation, no evidencehas emerged for any of them (i.e. Smt. Suneetha Reddy,Shri N. Raja Shekar Reddy or Shri N. Siva Prakash Reddy)being involved in the conspiracy behind murder of Shri Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy.”

26. At this stage, it is also material to extract from the order dated18 April 2023, in the remand proceedings before the Principal SpecialJudge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, pertaining to the co-accused :

“(v)The petitioner/complainant further averred that duringinvestigation Shaik Dasthagiri (A-4, turned approver)revealed that after the murder in the intervening night of14-15.03.2019, Yerra Gangi Reddy called Shaik Dasthagiriand other two co-accused on 15.03.2019 at about 5.20 AM,and told them not to worry. He also told them that he hadtalked with Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy and others, they will handleeverything and they will receive money later. Thesubsequent act of floating of story of death of the deceaseddue to heart attack and destruction of scene of crime in thepresence of Y.S. Avinash Reddy, Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy, D.Siva Shankar Reddy, Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy and Y.Gangi Reddy corroborates the disclosure of statement ofShaik Dasthagiri.

xxxxxxxxx

(vii) The petitioner/complainant further averred that ShaikDasthagiri (A-4, turned approver) further revealed that onthe basis of assurance extended by Yerra Gangi Reddy/A-1 to the assailants that they need not to worry about thepolice as all proofs of murder have been destroyed andeverything has been cleaned, the assailants did not revealthe truth when local police called them for enquiry. Further,in the early morning of 15.03.2019, accused Gajjala UdayKumar Reddy, D. Siva Shankar Reddy/A-5 and others werealready present at the house of Sri YS Bhaskar Reddy/Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy and prepared for immediatelyproceeding to the house of YS Vivekananda Reddy tomanage the scene of crime as conveyed by T. Gangi Reddy@ Y. Gangi Reddy/A-1 to three other co-assailants including A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Sheikh Dasthagiri (A-4 turned approver) at 5.20 AM at hisresidence.

(viii) The petitioner/complainant further averred that Sri N. SivaPrakash Reddy called from his mobile phone to Sri Y.S.Avinash Reddy at his mobile phone at 06:26:15 AM andinformed him about the death of Sri Y.S. VivekanandaReddy. Thereafter, Sri Y.S. Avinash Reddy accompaniedby D. Siva Shankar Reddy/A-5, Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy,E.C. Surendra Reddy, Prashant Reddy, Raghava Reddy andRamana Reddy (both Pas of Y.S. Avinash Reddy)immediately reached in three to four vehicles at the houseof Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy. The forensic analysis ofGoogle takeout of accused Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddycarried out by CFSL, New Delhi reveals that location ofmobile phone of Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy was inside thehouse of Sri Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy at 06:25:25 AM and justtwo minutes after at 06:27:28 AM, location of his mobilephone was found outside the house of Sri Y.S. vivekanandaReddy and thereafter, he was found present inside the houseof Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy at 6:29 to 6:31 AM.

(ix) The petitioner/complainant further averred that Y.S. AvinashReddy and other persons accompanied with him afterentering in the house of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy hadseen the blood present in the bedroom and dead body lyingin pool of blood in the bathroom with visible gruesomeinjuries on the head. Thereafter, Sri Y.S. Avinash Reddyusing mobile on one number ([REDACTED]) of his PA,Raghava Reddy made a call to Sri J. Shankaraiah,(92121100544), then Circle Inspector, Pullivendula andinformed him that Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy had dieddue to heart attach and heavy blood vomiting, which ispresent at bedroom and bathroom. He further told Sri J.Shjankaraiah to send three to four constables for bandobast.It is evident that Sri Y.S. Avinash Reddy had called policeonly after seeing the dead body of Sri Y.S. VivekanandaReddy and discussing the matter with D. Siva ShankarReddy. It indicates that the fake story of heart attack andblood vomiting was floated in a pre-meditated manner togive it a colour of natural death as a part of conspiracy.”

27. In this backdrop, the issue which arises for consideration is asto whether the High Court was justified in (i) granting an ad interim stayof arrest; and (ii) directing that the examination before the CBI in thecourse of the investigation shall be “in printed/written form” during thecourse of which a questionnaire may also be handed over to the firstrespondent.

28. It may be noted at this stage, that the High Court was still tohear the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. When the impugnedorder was passed on 18 April 2023, the High Court was moved with anapplication for ad interim stay of arrest pending the disposal of theapplication for anticipatory bail. Even at that stage, the High Court hasproceeded to observe that :

“15.The CBI, during the course of investigation has found thatthere are multiple motives for the murder of the deceased.One of the motives as attributed to this petitioner is regardingpolitical aspirations and that the deceased may come in hisway. The Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it isnot in dispute that the deceased canvassed for the petitionerand this is the second time that the petitioner was elected.However, according to the charge sheet, though there wereseparate motives and grudges, the accused had cometogether to do away with the deceased.

16. The case is still under investigation and multiple motivesare suggested. The motive attributed to this petitioner is onthe basis of the confession of A4 who according to himwas informed by Al that big persons are involved and namedthis petitioner along with A7 and two others. There is noother evidence apart from what was available in the year2021, however this petitioner was not arrested or examineduntil January this year. It is not the case that this petitionerwas absconding. The CBI has chosen not to arrest thispetitioner along with A7 but issued a 160 CRPC notice.Since there were allegations of bias, fabrication of evidenceand false implication, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directedchange of the investigating officer according to the Counselfor the petitioner. The deadline imposed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court for concluding investigation is 30[th] April,2023.”

A

B

D

EF

G

H

A

B

D

EF

G

H

A29. The above finding of the High Court at this stage is premature,particularly in the context of what has been stated by the CBI on affidavit.Having due regard to what has been stated by the CBI in its affidavit,we are clearly of the view that the High Court has misapplied itself andpassed an extraordinary order in terms of the directions which havebeen issued. The High Court has observed that the first respondent mayBnot appear for investigation apprehending arrest and seek alternativeremedies. While directing that the first respondent should be availablefor questioning “along with A6 and A7 who are given police custody, andthe High Court has directed that the first respondent shall attend theoffice of the CBI between 19 and 25 April 2023 and that (i) the questionCand answer shall be in printed/written form; and (ii) the questionnairemay also be handed over to the respondent.

A

30. An order of this nature would stultify the investigation. Thereis absolutely no warrant for the High Court to direct that the investigationof a person who has been interrogated as a suspect in the conspiracyDshould be in the printed or written form. Similarly, it is wholly inappropriatefor the High Court to observe that the questionnaire may also be handedover to the respondent. Such orders of the High Court are liable to gravelyprejudice the course of investigation. Particularly at this stage when theCBI is to fully investigate the crime and the role of several accused whodo not form a part of the charge sheet as submitted, we are of the viewEthat the directions issued by the High Court were unwarranted.

31. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugnedorder of the High Court dated 18 April 2023.

32. Since the application for anticipatory bail before the High CourtFis pending consideration, we clarify that the observations in this ordershall not come in the way of the High Court evaluating the application.

33. Having regard to the developments which have intervened,we are of the considered view that the time for the completion ofinvestigation by the CBI should be extended and we accordingly extendit until 30 June 2023.G

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

H