Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 793 (AP)

MOHD CHAND PASHA @ CHAND v. STATE OF A. P.

2009-11-06

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2009
(1) THESE three applications have been filed by A-6, A-7 and A-9. The petitioner in criminal Petition No. 8676 of 2009 is A-6, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 8023 of 2009 if A-7 and the petitioner in Criminal petition No. 8183 of 2009 is A-9. They filed these applications under Section 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bails in crime No. 990 of 2008 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 and 27 (1) of the Arms Act. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case is as follows: The accused No. 1 and deceased are cousins. The deceased (Rajeev Sisodia) and father of A-1 were doing joint auto finance business at hyderabad. About two years back, A-1 started jewellery business by investigating an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only), which is the joint amount of the father of the A-1 and deceased. A-1 had developed bad habits and he was spending money lavishly. The deceased after verifying the records and coming to know loss of gold jewellery business, directed A-1 to stop his business and also warned A-1 for his lavish spending. A-1 bore grudge against the deceased and decided to eliminate him. A-1 discussed with A-11, A-11 introduced A-10 to A-1, A-1 directed A-7 to attend the job of eliminating the deceased. A-1 contacted A-7 through his cell phone No. 9912699999 on 13-8-2008. A perusal of the call details of a-7 through his phone No. 9705544673 reveals that A-1 contacted him thrice on 13-8-2008, four times on 14-8-2008, three times on 16-8-2008, two times on 20-08-2008 and twelve times on 21-8-2008. On verification of the tower locations of the cell phones of the Accused A-7, A-3, A-5 and a-1 shows that, in the evening hours they had assembled at Panjagutta/khairatabad and contacted each other and entered into a contract to kill the deceased for an amount of rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only ). A-1 had paid an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) towards advance to A-3, A-5 and A-7. 7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only ). A-1 had paid an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) towards advance to A-3, A-5 and A-7. In pursuance of their conspiracy, A-3, A-5 and A-7secured some sharp edged weapons, made some phone calls to eliminate the deceased but were unsuccessful. A-1 was pressurizing the accused to execute their plan as early as possible. A-3 had friendship with A-8, A-3 contacted A-8, A-8 in turn contacted A-9, a-9 in turn contacted A-2. A-8 called A-4 and a-2, A-4, A-8 and A-9 discussed with each other. They agreed to commit the murder of the deceased for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only ). As per their plan, a-2, A-4, A-8 and A-9 came to Zaheerabad on 29-10-2008, they contacted A-3, A-5, A-6. In furtherance of their plan, A_2 to A-9 came to hyderabad on 30-10-2008 and met A-1 and as per his instructions, A-2 to A-6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and went to execute their plan but as there were some persons, they could not execute their plan. Later, A-1 to A-6 and A-8 and A-9 discussed with each other and sent A-8 and a-9 to their native place. On 31-10-2008 at about 6. 30 p. m. , A-2 to A-6 formed themselves into unlawful assembly and had gone to the place of offence at that time, A-2 was carrying a country made pistol with ammunition, a-3 was carrying a sword and was waiting at the turning point, A-4 was carrying a country made pistol and standing beside a-2 in front of the house of the deceased with an intention to attack and kill him. A-5 and a-6 were standing at a distance with an intention to attack the deceased if he escapes from A-2 and A-4. The accused A-1 was standing in his house on the second floor and giving directions quite frequently to A-2 to a-6 and contacting with A-3 in cell phone. While so, at about 07-15 p. m. to 07-30 p. m. when the deceased came to the spot in his maruthi Zen Car bearing No. AP11k 4096 and stopped the car in front of their house and was about to get down from the car, a-2 attacked him with a pistol and fired one round in to his head. The deceased collapsed and died. The deceased collapsed and died. The prosecution case is that A-1, a-7 to A-11 have committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 IPC and A-2 to A-6 have committed offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120-B read with Section 149 IPC and section 25 and 27 (1) of Arms Act. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the Petitioner/a-7 in Criminal Petition No. 8023 of 2009 submitted that A-7 was not present at the time of actual incident and that he is not involved in any case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner/a-7 submitted that A-7 has been in judicial custody since 6-11-2008 and as he is not present at the time of actual incident and not involved in any other case. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/a-9 in Criminal Petition No. 8183 of 2009 submitted that the petitioner/a-9 is a student studying I Year B. Com. and that his father had served in Army and that A-8 whose case is on similar footing was already granted bail and therefore the application of the petitioner/a-9 may be considered. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/a-6 in Criminal Petition No. 8676 of 2009 submitted that, no specific over acts have been attributed against A-6. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor submitted that a reading of the entire material reveals that it is A-7 who had entered into contract with A-1 and received an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) along with A-3 and A-5 and he is a party to the conspiracy and therefore, he cannot be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that as far as A-6 is concerned, he was carrying a knife and he was present at the time of incident therefore, he cannot be granted bail. The learned counsel for the wife of the deceased submitted in support of prosecution case that successive bail applications are not maintainable and that there is no change of circumstance from the date of dismissal of earlier bail applications. It is also submitted that as far as A-7 is concerned, in his previous bail petition, this court observed that A-7 may review his application after framing of the charges. It is also submitted that the accused are not co-operating with the lower Court in framing charges. It is also submitted that as far as A-7 is concerned, in his previous bail petition, this court observed that A-7 may review his application after framing of the charges. It is also submitted that the accused are not co-operating with the lower Court in framing charges. It is further submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence, the petitioners are not entitled to bail. ( 8 ) THE nature of offence, likelihood of jumping bail and tampering with the evidence are some of the relevant factors. The apprehension of prosecution that the accused may threaten the witnesses cannot be lightly brushed aside. Fair trial means fair trial not only to the accused but also to the victims and witnesses. The very presence of the accused who are alleged to have caused brutal gruesome murder may cause fear complex in the mind of the witnesses. The witnesses also should feel that they can depose without any fear. As seen from the above allegations, it is clear that, A-6 along with other accused came to Hyderabad on 30-10-2008, he was present all along with other accused, on the date of offence he was alleged to be carrying a knife. A-6 was standing at a distance with an intention to attack the deceased if he escapes from A-2 and A-4. A-1 was also standing in his house in the second floor and was contacting A-2 to a-6 quite frequently. In view of the specific overt acts against A-6 and in view of his presence at the spot carrying a knife, I am of the view that A-6 is not entitled for bail. As far as A-7 is concerned it is clear that A-1 contacted A-7 from his cell phone and that a-7 is one of the accused who had taken rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) from A-1 as an advance to kill the deceased. In view of the specific allegations, I am of the view that A-7 is also not entitled for bail. ( 9 ) AS far as A-9 is concerned that he is alleged to have came to Zaheerabad along with other accused but his case is similar to the accused of A-8 and almost one same footing. In view of the specific allegations, I am of the view that A-7 is also not entitled for bail. ( 9 ) AS far as A-9 is concerned that he is alleged to have came to Zaheerabad along with other accused but his case is similar to the accused of A-8 and almost one same footing. When the case of an accused whose case is on same footing is concerned, the case of accused i. e. whose case is similarly situated cannot be denied the same benefit. Moreover, it is submitted that A-9 is a student and he is not involved in any other case. In the circumstances, I am inclined to consider the bail application of A-9 and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the xiv Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner/a-9 is directed to regularly attend the Court and shall not tamper the prosecution evidence. ( 10 ) AS most of the accused are in jail since about one year and though there was an earlier direction by this Court to expedite framing of charges but till today no charges have been framed. I consider it just and reasonable to direct the lower Court to complete the stage of framing of charges with thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order and shall commence trial within two months and conduct the trial on day to day basis. The accused and the prosecution should assist the Court in framing charges and in concluding the trial as early as possible. ( 11 ) IN the result, Criminal Petition no. 8676 of 2009 of A-6 and Criminal Petition no. 8023 of 2009 of A-7 stands dismissed and the Criminal Petition No. 8183 of 2009 of a-9 is allowed subject to the conditions, observations made supra.