GALI JANARDHAN REDDY versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 10 October 2022

1. Present application has been preferred by the applicant –original accused for an appropriate order of modification of conditionNo.(c) of the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by this Court in SpecialLeave Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013 to the extent permitting the applicantto enter, stay and function in the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka andDistrict of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.

2. The applicant herein is the accused in RC 17(A)/2009-CBI-HYD dated 07.12.2009 as amended on 05.09.2011, for the offencesunder Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427 and 447 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860, section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 readwith Rules 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Developmentand Regulation) Act, 1957. That, the applicant – accused was arrestedby 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 Courtfor the grant of regular bail on number of occasions. The said requestof the applicant – accused was rejected inter alia on the ground thatgrant of bail to the applicant – accused may impede fair and uninfluencedinvestigation. That, when the applicant – accused lastly approached the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHigh Court in the year 2013 by way of filing Criminal Petition No.3632/2013, vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 , considering the gravityof the allegations leveled against the applicant – accused, his influentialstatus and the CBI indicated a reasonable apprehension that the accusedis likely to influence the investigation if enlarged on bail, the High Courtrejected the bail application. The applicant approached this Court byBway of Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013. By an order dated20.01.2015, the order which is sought to be now modified, this Court hadreleased 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,CHyderabad. If he has already surrendered his passport beforethe learned Principal Special Judge, that fact should also besupported by an affidavit;

b) He shall not leave the country without the leave of the learnedPrincipal Special Judge; D

c) He shall not visit the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka andDistrict of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh;

d) He shall cooperate with the Court in the smooth process oftrial and its early conclusion; E

e) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts ofthe case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing suchfacts to the Court or to tamper with the evidence;

f) He shall remain present before the learned Principal SpecialFJudge on the dates fixed for hearing of the case without fail. Ifhe requires to remain absent, he shall take prior permission ofthe learned Principal Special Judge and in case of unavoidablecircumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediatelyappropriately intimate the learned Principal Special Judge andalso to the Superintendent, CBI and request that he may beGpermitted to be present through the counsel.

g) Insofar as the surety amount is concerned, the petitionershall execute a bond with two solvent sureties, in a sum ofRs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) each.

H

h) If, for any reason the petitioner fails to comply with all theconditions as stipulated above, the respondents are at liberty toapproach this Court for modification/recall of the order grantingbail to the petitioner.

10. The grant of bail to the petitioner shall be subject to any othercases that are pending against the petitioner, wherein the petitioneris 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 hereinaboveand thereby permit him to enter, stay and function in the Districts ofBallery in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah inAndhra Pradesh.

4. At this stage it is required to be noted that in the year 2016 asimilar request was made to delete the conditions that were imposedwhile granting bail. By an order dated 01.07.2016, this Court dismissedthe said application, however, directed the trial Court to make anendeavour to complete the trial expeditiously. That, thereafter, one anotherapplication was made being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6534/2017 for modification of the condition imposed while granting bail whichcame to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2017. That,thereafter, the present application has been preferred. By an order dated19.08.2021, this Court while adjourning the application to third week ofNovember, 2021, has modified and substituted the condition No.(c) asunder:

“(c)As and when the petitioner proposes to visit any of the followingdistricts, being District Ballery in Karnataka and Ananthapuramand Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh, he shall give prior intimation tothe Superintendent of Police of the concerned district of the datewhen he proposes to go to the district and further he shall alsogive prior intimation to the concerned Superintendent of Police ofthe date of his departure from the said district.”

Condition No.(h) imposed in the order dated 20.01.2015 isreiterated.”

This Court has also observed that the trial Court shall makeendeavour to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A5. Thereafter, the present application is notified before the Benchfor further hearing.

6. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate has appearedon behalf of the applicant – accused and Ms. Madhavi Divan, learnedASG has appeared on behalf of the respondent – CBI.B

7. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing forthe applicant has vehemently submitted that after the initial order waspassed by this Court in the year 2015 granting bail on the conditionsmentioned in the said order, the applicant has visited Bellary on 8 to 9occasions pursuant to the permissions granted by this Court and duringCthe said visits, the applicant has never violated any of the conditionsimposed by this Court in the bail order. It is submitted that in past morethan 6 to 7 years since the bail has been granted, the applicant has notviolated any of the conditions as imposed. It is submitted that the trialhas 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.DIt is, therefore, requested to modify the condition No.(c) as mentioned inthe order dated 20.01.2015 and permit the applicant to enter, stay andfunction in the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District ofAnanthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.

7.1 In the alternative it is prayed to continue modification ofEcondition No.(c) as per the order passed by this Court on 19.08.2021.

8. Present application is vehemently opposed by Ms. MadhaviDivan, learned ASG. It is vehemently submitted that CBI has strongapprehension that if the condition No.(c) so imposed by this Court inthe order dated 20.01.2015 is modified and/or substituted, the applicantFmay influence the witnesses which may ultimately affect the trial and thejudicial process. It is submitted that in past, attempts were made toinfluence even the Judicial Officers which is already on record. It issubmitted that despite the orders passed by this Court, the trial is notproceeding because of the conduct on the part of the accused personsGby filing one after another discharge applications.

9. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has submitted that thereforein 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 andinfluence that the applicant is having. It is submitted that still as andwhen there is any emergency the applicant may still move this Court forH

appropriate permission which may be considered on case to case basisand therefore, to that extent, the interest of the applicant can be takencare of.

10. In response, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocatein the alternative has submitted that as the daughter of the applicant hasrecently delivered a child at Bengaluru and now she is at Bellary, theapplicant may be permitted to visit and stay at Bellary atleast for aperiod 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 applicanthad delivered the child at Bengaluru and she was never at Bellary. It issubmitted that only after present application was heard by this Court on29.09.2022, in the evening the daughter of the applicant is shifted toBellary. Therefore, it is prayed to consider the aforesaid conduct on thepart of the applicant.

12. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocateappearing for the applicant and Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASGappearing on behalf of the CBI at length. We have considered thesubmissions made on behalf of the respective parties. We have consideredthe material on record.

13. The applicant is facing the trial for very serious offencespunishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427 and 447of 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. The investigation was carriedout by the CBI. Most of the witnesses are from Bellary in Karnatakaand District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh. Takinginto consideration the apprehension on the part of the CBI that if theapplicant is allowed to enter, stay and function in the Districts of Bellaryin Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in AndhraPradesh and that there are all possibilities of applicant influencing and/or tampering with the witnesses, this Court while granting bail imposedcondition No.(c) restraining the applicant from entering into the Districtsof Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah inAndhra Pradesh. In past, the apprehensions are proved to be true andeven the judicial officers were influenced/tried to be influenced. Thereis a serious apprehension on the part of the CBI/investigating agency A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat if condition No.(c) is relaxed and/or modified and/or substituted, therewould be threat to the witnesses because of the power and influencethat the applicant is having. It is very unfortunate that even after a periodof 11 years of filing the FIR and despite the observations made by thisCourt directing the trial to be expedited, the trial has not begun. From thematerial on record, it appears that the trial has not begun on the groundBthat the accused/co-accused are filing the applications for dischargeone after another, due to which the trial has not begun. In a case likethis, it is always in the larger interest that the trial is concluded at theearliest. Early conclusion of the trial would enhance the faith of people injustice delivery system. The trial must come to its logical end at the earliest.CAny attempt on the part of the accused to delay the trial of seriousoffences is to be dealt with iron hands. More the delay, more thepossibilities of influencing the witnesses. Therefore, we are of the opinionthat as despite the observations made by this Court directing to expeditethe trial, as the trial has not begun, now, a direction is to be issued to thetrial Court to begin the trial on day to day basis and once the trial beginsDthe applicant – accused may be restrained from entering into the Districtsof Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah inAndhra Pradesh looking to the strong apprehension on the part of theCBI recorded hereinabove.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, weEdispose of/dismiss the present application for modification/substitution ofcondition No.(c) in the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by this Court inSpecial Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 7053/2013. However, we direct asunder:

(1) Learned trial Court /SpecialCourt is hereby directed toFconduct the trial on day to day basis from 09.11.2022. Wedirect the learned Special Court to conclude the trial withina period of six months from 09.11.2022 without fail;

(2) That the prosecution may examine first, the witnesses fromBellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram andGCuddapah in Andhra Pradesh as far as possible. It will bethe duty of the investigating agency to keep all the witnessespresent for the purpose of their depositions/examination inchief;

(3) All the accused are hereby directed to cooperate the learnedHSpecial Court in conclusion of the trial at the earliest and within the period stipulated hereinabove and any attempt onthe part of the accused to delay the trial shall be viewedvery seriously; A

(4) As it is reported that the daughter of the applicant hasdelivered a child recently and now she is at Bellary, theapplicant is permitted to stay at Bellary upto 06.11.2022. ItBis specifically directed that the applicant shall move out ofBellary and remain out of Bellary in Karnataka and Districtsof Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh from07.11.2022 till the trial is concluded.

15. With the aforesaid directions, present application shall standdisposed of. Registry is directed to send the present order to the learnedSpecial Court forthwith.

C

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

Application disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H