Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 821 (TS)

State of Telangana v. Kilaru Rama Krishna

2020-11-30

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2020
ORDER : 1. Since the facts and legal issues involved in both the Criminal Petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, filed both these Criminal Petitions under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to cancellation of bails. Crl. Pet. No. 2422 is filed seeking to cancel anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/A-4 and Crl. Pet. No. 2423 is filed seeking to cancel regular bail granted to the respondents/A-2 and A-3 vide separate orders dated 05.06.2020 in Crl. M.P. Nos. 193 and 194 of 2020 in Crime No. 48 of 2020 respectively by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kothagudem (for short, Court below). 3. The respondent in Crl. Pet. No. 2422 of 2020 is A-4 and the respondents in Crl. Pet. No. 2423 of 2020 are A-2 and A-3 in Crime No. 48 of 2020 on the file of Dummugudem Police Station, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 120-B and 121-A of IPC and Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, the Act). 4. A-4 has filed Crl. M.P. No. 193 of 2020 seeking anticipatory bail and A-2 and A-3 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 194 of 2020 seeking regular bail before the Court below. Vide separate orders dated 05.06.2020, the Court below has granted anticipatory bail to A-4 and regular bail to A-2 and A-3 on certain conditions. The Court below has directed A-2 and A-3 to cooperate with the Investigation Agency and directed A-4 not to tamper the evidence or threaten the witnesses in any manner. 5. Challenging the said orders, the State has filed the present Criminal Petitions seeking cancellation of bails on the ground that A-2 to A-4 have funded to a banned organization i.e., CPI (Maoist) Party which is declared as unlawful organization under the Act by both the Central and State Governments. The said organization used to collect funds from the contractors, business people to stretch unlawful activities to wage war against the democratically elected Government. A-4 is the owner of KRK Infra Project Pvt. Limited and A-2 and A3 are its employees and they have extended financial assistance of Rs. 6 lakhs to A-1. The said organization used to collect funds from the contractors, business people to stretch unlawful activities to wage war against the democratically elected Government. A-4 is the owner of KRK Infra Project Pvt. Limited and A-2 and A3 are its employees and they have extended financial assistance of Rs. 6 lakhs to A-1. It is further contended by the State that A-4, being the Managing Director of KRK Infra Project Pvt. Limited, maintaining close nexus with the UG cadre Maoists and his arrest is very much necessary to elicit more connections and there is every chance of A-4 approaching Maoists to target the witnesses, who are already in lot of apprehension and fear and if he is not taken into judicial custody, his activities would become danger to the lives of the witnesses. A-4 is already trying to influence the family members of the crucial witnesses to win over them by muscle and money power and arresting him sends a sense of security to the witnesses and other workers in his company who are willing to cooperate with Police investigation. It is further contended that the custodial interrogation of A-4 is required to complete the investigation. Anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the prohibition under Section 43D (4) of the Act. With the said submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor sought to cancel the regular bail granted to A-2 and A-3 and anticipatory bail granted to A-4. 6. Sri. C. Raghu, learned counsel for A-2 to A-4, would submit that arrest of A-4 is not compulsory. The Police have already arrested A-2 and A-3 and their custodial interrogation for 3 days was also completed. The prosecution did not seek any extension of custodial interrogation of A-2 and A-3. Considering the said facts only, the Court below has granted regular bail to A-2 and A-3. He would further submit that there are no specific allegations against A-4 and that anticipatory bail application is maintainable as per Section 43D (4) of the Act on special circumstances. The Court below has considered all the aspects including law laid down by the Apex Court in granting bails to A-2 to A-4 and hence, the impugned orders are reasonable orders. With the said submissions, learned counsel for A-2 to A-4 sought to dismiss the present Criminal Petitions filed by the State. 7. The Court below has considered all the aspects including law laid down by the Apex Court in granting bails to A-2 to A-4 and hence, the impugned orders are reasonable orders. With the said submissions, learned counsel for A-2 to A-4 sought to dismiss the present Criminal Petitions filed by the State. 7. It is relevant to mention here that A-2 and A-3 were arrested by the Police on 27.05.2020. The petition filed by the prosecution for custodial interrogation of A-2 and A-3 was allowed by the Court below and they were interrogated for 3 days. Thereafter, the prosecution has not filed any application seeking extension of custodial interrogation of A-2 and A-3. Thus, they are in jail from 27.05.2020 to 05.06.2020. Considering the said facts, the Court below has granted regular bail to A-2 and A-3. 8. It is trite to mention that the allegation against A-2 and A-3 is that they are the employees of A-4, and on the instructions of A-4, they have handed over an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs to A-1. Thus, the said aspects would reveal that A-2 and A-3 are only employees of A-4. There is no allegation against them that they have nexus with A-1 or other members of CPI (Maoist) Party, a banned organization. At the cost of repetition, it is trite to note that the Police have taken custody of A-2 and A-3 for 3 days and they have not filed any application seeking extension of their custody. Thus, the custodial interrogation of A-2 and A-3 is also over. 9. It is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349 and also Patna High Court in Usha Devi vs. State of Bihar, 2006 Crl. L.J. 4435 wherein it is held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. It is also apt to note that the Apex Court in Ms. L.J. 4435 wherein it is held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. It is also apt to note that the Apex Court in Ms. X vs. The State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. 716/2018, dated 17.05.2018 after referring the principles held by it in Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. AIR 2015 SC 3703 , Kanwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (12) SCC 180 , Subramani Gopalakrishnan (2011) 5 SCC 296 and Dolat Ram's case (supra) and also on the facts of the said case, held that the Court must bear in mind that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event has been made out. It is also relevant to note that in a recent judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452 , the Apex Court held as follows: “while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 10. In view of the above said law laid down by the Apex Court and Patna High Court in the above said judgments, bail once granted cannot be cancelled mechanically unless cogent case based on supervening event has been made out. In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish any cogent case/reason based on supervening event to cancel the bail. Hence, Crl. Pet. In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish any cogent case/reason based on supervening event to cancel the bail. Hence, Crl. Pet. No. 2423 of 2020 filed by the State seeking cancellation of bail granted to A-2 and A-3 vide order dated 05.06.2020 in Crl. M.P. No. 194 of 2020 in Crime No. 48 of 2020 is dismissed. 11. Coming to Crl. Pet. No. 2422 of 2020, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of prohibition under Section 43D (4) of the Act, anticipatory application filed by A-4 is not maintainable. Without considering the said fact, the Court below has granted anticipatory bail to A-4. He would further submit that A-4 is having nexus with the members of CPI (Maoist) Party, a banned organization, and he is funding to the said organization to carry on his contract activities. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is required. 12. In view of the same, it is relevant to note Section 43D (4) and (5) of the Act and it reads as under: “43D: Modified application of certain provisions of the Code: (1) to (3) (4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.” 13. In Anand Teltumbde vs. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl) No. 1916 of 2020, dated 16.03.2020 the Apex Court held that nothing in Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under the Act. It cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. It cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. The petitions cannot be said to be maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 43D (4) of the Act. 14. It is trite to note that the Court below in the order dated 05.06.2020 in Crl. M.P. No. 193 of 2020 has also referred to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Anand Teltumbde's case (supra), Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 and National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 and held that the anticipatory bail application is maintainable. 15. Sri. C. Raghu, learned counsel for A-4, would submit that basing on the confession statements of A-1 to A-3, the Police have implicated A-4. He would further submit that A-2 to A-4 prepared to give money under coercion and it shows that they are victims but not offenders. Considering the said facts, the Court below has granted anticipatory bail to A-4 on the ground that there is no prima facie evidence against him. 16. As discussed supra, bail once granted cannot be cancelled unless there is a cogent case/reason based on supervening events. In view of the same, the prosecution has failed to establish any ground warranting interference by this Court in the impugned order dated 05.06.2020 in Crl. M.P. No. 193 of 2020 in Crime No. 48 of 2020. Hence, Criminal Petition No. 2422 is also dismissed. 17. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.