Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 424 (AP)

Seizing Raja Alias Raja v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-06-17

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2. The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.41 of 2018 of Gudipala Police Station, Chittoor District. 3. The alleged offence against him is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The earlier application filed by him is dismissed by this Court. The facts of the case are already dealt with in the previous bail application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. It is a case of double murder. As per version of the prosecution, on account of the land disputes existing between A-1 and the deceased persons in this case, A-1 went to the extent of hatching up a conspiracy in collusion with A-2 and A-8 to A-10 and brutally killed two deceased persons in this case. 7. It is already observed by this Court in the previous bail order, dated 17.12.2019 in Crl.P.No.7417 of 2019 that as per the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is also involved in several crimes registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Tamil Nadu. It appears that about 31 crimes are pending against him and investigation in some of the cases and trial in some of the said cases are pending. It appears that a rowdy sheet is also opened against him. So considering all these facts and as he got a very bad criminal history and he has been indulging and committing various brutal crimes, this Court held that he is not entitled to be released on bail. There are no valid grounds to take a different view in this petition. 8. However, this Court has given a direction to the trial Court to number the Sessions Case and immediately proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of the order. 9. There are no valid grounds to take a different view in this petition. 8. However, this Court has given a direction to the trial Court to number the Sessions Case and immediately proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of the order. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court today by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the case has been numbered and the trial also commenced after fixing the trial schedule pursuant to the direction given by this Court and about 21 witnesses have been already examined in this case and only official witnesses are yet to be examined and on account of the present pandemic situation that the trial has been abruptly stalled. In that view of the matter, as the trial has already commenced and the material witnesses were already examined and only official witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court is of the considered view that a direction to the trial Court to complete the trial by examining the remaining witnesses also would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor District is hereby directed to proceed with the remaining part of the trial and examine the other witnesses and dispose of the said case within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to take necessary precautions required in the present pandemic situation to conduct trial to examine the said witnesses and dispose of the said case.