SUNEETHA NARREDDY & ANOTHER versus THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS on 29 November 2022

1. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia has been preferred by the daughter and the wife of the deceased– Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, seeking transfer of trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa,Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad or CBI SpecialCourt, New Delhi, and also to direct the CBI for duly completing theinvestigation in the aforesaid FIR in a time bound manner.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A2. Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the petitioners has submitted that the incident pertains to themysterious death of late Shri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, the brother oflate Shri Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy (former Chief Minister of the unitedState of Andhra Pradesh) and uncle of Shri Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy,the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the opposite leader atBthe time of the incident.

A

2.1 It is submitted that the deceased was brutally murdered onthe intervening night of 14-15/03.2019 in his house. It is submitted thatthe then State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT).However, subsequently, petitioner No.2 and Shri Y. Jaganmohan ReddyCfiled petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for transfer ofinvestigation to the CBI. It is submitted that thereafter the elections tothe State Assembly were held on 11.04.2019 and Shri Y. JaganmohanReddy became the Chief Minister and took oath on 30.05.2019.Thereafter, the SIT was re-constituted twice, but there was no progressDin the investigation and therefore petitioner No.1 was constrained toapproach the High Court to transfer the investigation to the CBI. However,Shri Y. Jaganmohan Reddy withdrew his petition for transferring theinvestigation to the CBI and the State also opposed such transfer.However, the High Court was pleased to transfer the investigation tothe CBI.E

2.2 It is submitted that thereafter and after the CBI took over theinvestigation, there was substantial progress and in the course of time,five accused have been arrested and the chargesheet and thesupplementary chargesheet have been filed. It is submitted that however,though in the chargesheet, the role of one Y.S. Avinash Reddy, who is aFsitting Member of Parliament from the ruling party in Andhra Pradeshcame to light and he was mentioned as a suspect and he played a keyrole in the destruction of the evidence and spreading false news that thedeceased died due to heart attack, the said Y.S. Avinash Reddy has notyet been arrested and the State authorities and the influential people inGthe State are using all kinds of tactics to scuttle the investigation with theaim to shield the said Y.S. Avinash Reddy and his close associate D.Shiv Shankar Reddy (A5). It is submitted that not only that, a falsecomplaint came to be filed against the officers of the CBI and the CBIofficers were constrained to approach the High Court against the saidcomplaint and the High Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings.H

It is submitted that however the investigation has been stalled due to thependency of the complaint and the CBI officers leaving Andhra Pradesh.It is submitted that thereafter the CBI officers have not resumedinvestigation anticipating more false complaints at the behest of theaccused and interference by the State authorities if they resumeinvestigation by travelling to Andhra Pradesh.

2.3 It is submitted that the people involved in the crime, with theaid and active participation of the State authorities and influential peoplein the State are making conscious efforts to scuttle the investigation andprotect the culprits by influencing the witnesses, the investigation, andthe judicial process.

2.4 It is submitted that the lives of the key witnesses and accused,specially one Shaik Dastagiri (A4) and one Ranganna (PW61) are indanger. It is submitted that one of the key witnesses has died in asuspicious manner.

2.5 It is submitted that one of the witnesses who initially agreed togive his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been subsequentlyscared and he has been taken back on duty and thereafter he has refusedto give his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted thattherefore all pressure tactics are being adopted not to further investigate.It is submitted that as the witnesses are under threat, the petitioners areapprehending that they may not get justice and therefore it is prayed totransfer the trial either to New Delhi or Hyderabad.

2.6 It is further submitted that even some witnesses are providedwith special security considering life threat perception to them. It issubmitted that therefore the petitioners have reasonable apprehensionthat there shall not be any fair and independent trial if the same iscontinued at CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.

3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of Indiahas appeared on behalf of the respondent -CBI. A counter affidavit hasbeen filed on behalf of the CBI.

3.1 It is submitted that in light of the observations made by theHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati, further investigation of thecase is still continuing on the issue of larger conspiracy for murder anddestruction of evidence at the scene of crime.

3.2 Now so far as the allegation of the applicants on influence/inducement/threat to the witnesses and the false and frivolous complaints A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aagainst the officers of the CBI/investigating agency is concerned, it issubmitted that the events unfolded during the course of investigation doindicate that several witnesses in the case are being influenced at thebehest of the accused D. Siva Shankar Reddy (A5) and his closeassociates. It is reported that three star witnesses are already suspectedto have come under the influence of A5 and other conspirators.B

3.3 It is submitted that in the course of investigation, one K.Gangadhar Reddy, a criminal and a close associate of the accused D.Siva Shankar Reddy (A5) himself had approached CBI and thereafterhis statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It is submittedthat he volunteered to give the statement to the learned Magistrate.CTherefore, the investigating officer of CBI, to get his statement recordedbefore the learned Court, filed an application and vide order dated27.11.2021 the learned Court nominated the learned Judicial Magistrate(First Class), Jamalamudugu to record the statement of K. GangadharReddy under section 164 Cr.P.C. However, on 29.11.2021, the said K.DGangadhar Reddy did not attend the court of JMFC, Jamalamudugu togive his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that on thecontrary he gave a statement before the media that he is being pressurisedby the CBI to give statement. It is submitted that thereafter the said K.Gangadhar Reddy had died under suspicious circumstances on 9.6.2022in his house. It is submitted that one another witness, namely, J.EShankaraiah was suspended for dereliction of duty in connection withthe incident and whose statement was earlier recorded under section161 Cr.P.C. was to appear for recording his statement under Section164 Cr.P.C., however, he has been warned over and initially he did notappear for recording his statement pursuant to the order dated 30.09.2021.FHowever, thereafter his suspension came to be revoked on 6.10.2021and he was reinstated in service and therefore thereafter he is notappearing for recording his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.

3.4 It is submitted that two star witnesses are already under thepolice protection, considering the life threat perception to them. Therefore,Git is submitted that there are all possibilities of influencing the witnessesand/or tampering with the evidence and there shall not be a fair furtherinvestigation on the larger conspiracy as the officers of the CBI/investigating agency are also pressurised and given threats and evenfalse FIR is filed against them.

H

4. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Advocate has appearedon behalf of the State and has opposed the present petition. We haveheard Shri Kapil Sibbal and Shri Guru Krishnakumar, learned SeniorAdvocates appearing on behalf of the respective respondents/impleaders,who are opposing the present writ petition. The present petition is alsoopposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.A counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of respondent No.4.

4.1 While opposing the present petition, learned senior counsel/counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/impleaders havevehemently submitted that the present petition for the reliefs sought maynot be entertained.

4.2 It is submitted that the primary contentions of the petitionersare in relation to witnesses being influenced and threat to lives of accusedNo.4 – the approver and other witnesses. It is submitted that no realthreat perception to either the life of the accused or to the witnesses hasbeen established by the petitioners. It is submitted that more than threeyears have passed since the murder of the deceased has happened, butnone of the witnesses or accused has approached the police, CBI orCourts and alleged any threat to life.

4.3 It is submitted that in fact to witnesses, namely, Shaik Dastagiriand Ranganna have already been granted protection by the SessionsCourt under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

4.4 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case ofAmarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal, (2009) 6 SCC 260, it issubmitted that as observed and held by this Court, the apprehension ofnot getting a fair and impartial enquiry/trial is required to be reasonableand not imaginary.

4.5 It is submitted that relief of transfer of trial sought in the presentpetition has a direct bearing on the right of defence of the accused.

4.6 It is further submitted that in the present case the chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet have been filed. It is submitted that thereare more than 250 witnesses to be examined and therefore if the trial istransferred to Delhi and/or outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, it maynot only cause undue hardship to those witnesses but in fact may alsoprejudice the accused and therefore there may not be chances of a fairtrial.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.

The present petition pertains to the mysterious death of late Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy, the brother of late Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy (formerChief Minister of the united State of Andhra Pradesh) and uncle of Y.S.BJaganmohan Reddy, the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh andthe opposite leader at the time of the incident. The present petitionerNo.1 Dr. Suneetha Narreddy is the daughter of the deceased. She is aDoctor by profession. The present petition under Article 32 of theConstitution of India has been filed by the daughter and wife of thedeceased, seeking transfer of trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/CSC-III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh tothe CBI Special Court, Hyderabad or CBI Special Court, New Delhi,and also to direct the CBI for duly completing the investigation in theaforesaid FIR in a time bound manner.

6. It is apprehended on behalf of the petitioners that star witnesses/Dwitnesses are having life threat perceptions and that some of the witnessesare already influenced. Therefore, it is apprehended that there is everylikelihood that there may not be a fair and impartial trial and even furtherinvestigation on the issue of larger conspiracy for murder and destructionof evidence at the scene of crime because of the influence on the part ofEthe accused and the State machinery.

7. In the case of Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N., (2000)6 SCC 204, in paragraph 7, it is observed and held as under:

“7. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartialjustice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it isFshown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would beseriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a casewithin the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the countryunder Section 406 CrPC. The apprehension of not getting a fairand impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and notGimaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appearsthat the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartiallyand objectively and without any bias, before any court or even atany place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to anothercourt where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive.No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding H

a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis ofthe facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including thewitnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant considerationfor deciding the transfer petition…..”

7.1 Similar view has been expressed in the case of JayendraSaraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N., (2005) 8 SCC 771.

8. It is true that as per the settled position of law and even asobserved and held by this Court in the case of Amarinder Singh (supra)for transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehensionon the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done. It is alsoobserved in the said decision that it is one of the principles ofadministration of justice that justice should not only be done but it shouldbe seen to be done. As observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision,however, the Court has to see whether the apprehension alleged isreasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be imaginary, butmust appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension.

9. Now let us consider whether the apprehension that justice willnot be done and/or there shall not be a fair trial, is reasonable or not.

The deceased was murdered on 14-15/03/2019 in his house. Thethen State Government constituted a SIT. Subsequently, petitioner No.2and Y. Jaganmohan Reddy (the present Chief Minister) filed petitionsbefore the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for transfer of investigation toCBI. That thereafter the allegations to the State Assembly were held on11.04.2019 and the said Y. Jaganmohan Reddy became the Chief Ministerand took oath on 30.05.2019. Thereafter, the SIT was re-constitutedtwice, but there was no progress in the investigation and thereforepetitioner No.2 was constrained to approach the High Court for transferof investigation to CBI. However, in view of the changed circumstances,Y. Jaganmohan Reddy withdrew his petition to transfer the investigationto CBI and the State opposed such transfer. However, the High Courtwas pleased to transfer the investigation to the CBI and that is how theCBI took over the investigation. During the course of investigation, theCBI filed chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet. However, pursuantto the order passed by the High Court, further investigation by the CBIon the issue of larger conspiracy of murder and destruction of evidenceat the scheme of crime is still continuing. During the course of furtherinvestigation on the larger conspiracy, an FIR against the officers of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACBI is filed which has been stayed by the High Court. It appears thattherefore apprehending harassment and filing false/frivolous complaints,the CBI/investigating agency stopped further investigation. Therefore,there is a reasonable apprehension that there shall not be any fairinvestigation so far as the further investigation on larger conspiracy anddestruction of evidence is concerned.B

10. Even two key witnesses, namely, Shaik Dastagiri and Rangannaare already given the police protection under the Witnesses ProtectionScheme, 2018, pursuant to the order passed by the learned SessionsCourt, considering the life threat perception. Even in the response to thepresent petition, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State hasCalso produced the orders passed by the competent authority grantingpolice protection to two witnesses.

11. As observed hereinabove, one of the witnesses who was torecord his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not appeared forrecording of his statement, though initially he volunteered to given theDstatement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The reason seems to be thatthereafter his suspension order has been revoked and he has been takenback on duty.

12. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it emerges that one ofthe key witnesses, namely, K. Gangadhar Reddy, though initially heEvolunteered to give his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and theCBI submitted an application to record his statement under Section 164Cr.P.C., thereafter he did not turn up to get his statement recorded andon the contrary he made a statement before the media that he was beingpressurised by the CBI. That thereafter he has died under mysteriouscircumstances.F

13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannotbe said that apprehension on the part of the petitioners being daughterand wife of the deceased that there may not be a fair trial and that theremay not be any independent and fair investigation with respect to furtherGinvestigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence at thescene of incident is imaginary and/or has no substance at all. Thepetitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamentalright to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation thatcriminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner anduninfluenced by any extraneous considerations. Under the circumstances, H

we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to transfer the trial and furtherinvestigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence to theState other than the State of Andhra Pradesh.

14. As per the settled position of law, justice is not to be done butthe justice is seen to have been done also. As per the settled position oflaw, free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Ifthe criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairnessand the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidenceof the public in the system. However, at the same time, looking to thelarge number of witnesses to be examined during the trial and no hardshipis caused to those witnesses, we are of the opinion that instead oftransferring the trial to New Delhi, it may be transferred to CBI SpecialCourt at Hyderabad.

15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent writ petition is allowed. The trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, AndhraPradesh is hereby ordered to be transferred to the CBI Special Court,Hyderabad. All the relevant papers including chargesheet/supplementarychargesheet are now to be transferred to the CBI Special Court,Hyderabad. The CBI is also directed to complete the further investigation/investigation in the aforesaid FIR on the larger conspiracy and destructionof evidence, as observed by the High Court earlier, at the earliest and itgoes without saying that it must be done independently and in an unbiasedmanner.

Devika Gujral

Writ petition allowed.

(Assisted by : Shubhanshu Das, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H