ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Code’) to release the petitioner-accused No. 1 on bail in C.C. No. 202 of 2017 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Mr. V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The petitioner herein is accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 202 of 2017. On the complaint lodged by Rudra Bhaskar, the then Inspector of Police, Kalapathar Police Station, a case in Crime No. 119 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, and also Section 12 (1) (a) (b) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967. The police after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No. 202 of 2017 for the said offences. The trial court after trial, vide judgment dated 07.08.2018 convicted the petitioner-accused No. 1 and imposed sentences of simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 471 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 420 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He was also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 12 (1)(a)(b) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Vide judgment dated 24.02.2020, the learned Sessions Judge has disposed of the said criminal appeal setting aside the judgment dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 202 of 2017, remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to follow the procedure laid down by Chapter XVII and XIX of the Code, frame charges against accused Nos. 1 and 2 as per law, by meeting the accusations made against accused Nos. 1 and 2 as per law, by meeting the accusations made against accused Nos. 1 to 6, 8 and 9, as indicated by it, and conduct further proceedings, and hear both sides before framing appropriate charges. The learned Sessions Judge made it clear that the trial Court should give opportunity to prosecution and accused to adduce further evidence, including recalling of any witness after framing charges. Since accused No. 1 is in judicial custody, the trial Court shall dispose of C.C. No. 202 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. Accused No. 1 shall continue to be in jail till disposal of C.C. 202 of 2017. Accused No. 1 shall be produced by Jail Authorities before the trial Court at 10.30 A.M. on 06.03.2020. Accused No. 2, who is on bail, shall appear before the trial Court at 10.30 A.M. on 06.03.2020. 4. During pendency of the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge vide Crl. M.P. No. 357 of 2018, has suspended the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and the petitioner as well as accused No. 2 were released on bail. The prosecution has filed an application vide Crl. M.P. No. 2606 of 2018 to cancel the bail against the petitioner herein and the same was allowed on 15.09.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and accused No. 1 filed Criminal Petition No. 9898 of 2018 before this Court seeking to quash the order dated 15.09.2018 in Crl. M.P. No. 2606 of 2018. This Court vide order dated 30.10.2018, allowed the said petition in part setting aside the order dated 15.09.2018 in so far as accused No. 2 is concerned, and directed the petitioner-accused No. 1 to surrender before the trial Court on or before 01.11.2018. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner-accused No. 1 has surrendered himself before the trial Court on 01.11.2018 and since then he is in judicial custody. 5. Mr. V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is in jail from 01.11.2018. Even at the crime stage, he was in judicial custody. The punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC is seven years or below seven years. 5. Mr. V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is in jail from 01.11.2018. Even at the crime stage, he was in judicial custody. The punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC is seven years or below seven years. Similarly, the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 12 (1)(a)(b) of the Passport Act is not less than one year but may extend to five years. Thus, the petitioner herein has completed 60% of the conviction. He would further submit that there is no likelihood of disposal of C.C. No. 202 of 2017 in the near future by the trial Court due to the present COVID-19, pandemic situation. Except one case under Section 506 of IPC on the file of Rein Bazar Police Station, there are no other cases against accused No. 1. All other cases ended in acquittal. This Court has quashed the order passed against the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act. Accused No. 1 never absconded while he was on bail and there was no allegation against him that the petitioner is threatening the prosecution witnesses. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that in C.C. No. 202 of 2017, the prosecution has examined as many as 34 witnesses, and marked Exs.P1 to P135 and MOs.1 to 10 were exhibited. In view of the remand by the appellate Court, the prosecution has to examine the said 34 witnesses and mark the aforesaid documents again. Therefore, it will definitely take a considerable time to conclude trial afresh by following the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by this Court from time to time on account of present COVID-19 pandemic situation. The petitioner-accused No. 1 is ready to co-operate with the trial Court in concluding the trial in C.C. No. 202 of 2017. The petitioner is in jail from 01.11.2018. His wife and children are depending on him. The petitioner is permanent resident of Hyderabad. Therefore, if the petitioner is not released on bail, his right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be affected. 7. The petitioner is in jail from 01.11.2018. His wife and children are depending on him. The petitioner is permanent resident of Hyderabad. Therefore, if the petitioner is not released on bail, his right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be affected. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. would submit that where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under the Code of an offence under any law not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties. Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the person bond with or without sureties. Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence. 8. By referring to the above said provision, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has completed half of the sentence prescribed in the offence alleged against the petitioner and finally sought to grant bail to the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner-accused No. 1 has involved in 69 cases including 12 cases for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, 8 cases for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, 2 cases for the offence under Section 390 of IPC, 2 cases for the offence under Section 391 of IPC, 5 cases under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA Act), 9 cases under the Arms Act, 1959, 1 case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that after conviction in C.C. No. 202 2017, when sentence was suspended for temporary period and he was on bail, he has again involved in another case which was registered as Crime No. 145 of 2018 under Sections 448, 427, 341, 506, 148, 457, 452, 109, 384 and 149 of IPC. The said case is also pending for trial. By referring to the same, the learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that every time whenever the petitioner-accused No. 1 is enlarged on bail, he was continuously involving in criminal activities and there is likelihood of his committing offences if he is released on bail. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that during pendency of case in C.C. No. 202 of 2017, the petitioner has involved in three cases viz. (i) Crime No. 31 of 2018 on the file of Kamatipura Police Station for the offences under Sections 384, 506 and 109 read with 34 of IPC; (ii) Crime No. 82 of 2018 on the file of Falaknuma Police Station for the offences under Sections 448, 506 and 109 read with 34 of IPC and (iii) Crime No. 94 of 2018 on the file of Rein Bazar Police Station, for the offences under Sections 341, 506, 507 and 109 read with 34 of IPC. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is a notorious criminal and he utilizes each and every possibility to misguide the law, and now taking advantage of COVID-19 pandemic situation is trying to escape from the clutches of law, and if he is released, there is every possibility of threatening the witnesses and tampering with the evidence and causing harm to innocent persons. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a list in a tabular form showing the details of the cases in which the petitioner-accused No. 1 involved, which is as under: Gangster Ayub Khan @ Ayub Pahelwan @ Patan committed the following offences in Hyderabad, Rachakonda and Cyberabad. commissionerates. S. No. Police Station Name Crime Details Stage of the Case 1 PS KAMATIPURA Cr. No. 96/90 U/s. 147, 148, 108, 332, 452, 153-A IPC r/w. Sec. 03 of TADA Act The case is referred as UN for want of Govt. prosecution permission on 28-04-1999 vide FR No. 12/1999. 2 -do- Cr. commissionerates. S. No. Police Station Name Crime Details Stage of the Case 1 PS KAMATIPURA Cr. No. 96/90 U/s. 147, 148, 108, 332, 452, 153-A IPC r/w. Sec. 03 of TADA Act The case is referred as UN for want of Govt. prosecution permission on 28-04-1999 vide FR No. 12/1999. 2 -do- Cr. No. 05/91 U/s. 302, r/w. 34 IPC Sec. 3(1) of TADA Act The case is Abated on 17-06-1997 by IVth AMSJ Court, Hyd. 3 -do- Cr. No. 17/91 U/s. 332 IPC The case acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. vide C.C. No. 178/1994 on 11-01-1995 by the Hon'ble IInd M.M. Court. Hyd. 4 -do- Cr. No. 27/92 U/s. 342, 355, 506 IPC The case acquitted U/s. 255(1) Cr.P.C. vide C.C. No. 147/1993 on 02-08-1994 by the Hon'ble IInd M.M. Court. Hyd. 5 -do- Cr. No. 28/92 U/s. 353, 307 IPC The case acquitted U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. vide SC No. 254/1995 on 07-06-1997 by the Hon'ble IVth AMSJ Court, Hyd. 6 -do- Cr. No. 52/92 U/s. 384 IPC The case acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. vide C.C. No. 64/1993 on 30-07-1994 by the Hon'ble IInd M.M. Court. Hyd. 7 -do- Cr. No. 09/94 U/s. 307 IPC & 25(1)(a) Arms Act The case convicted U/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment by the Hon'ble IVth MSJ Court, Hyd. vide SC No. 297/1994 on 07-06-1996. 8 -do- Cr. No. 64/95 U/s. 395 IPC & 25(1)(a) Arms Act The case acquitted on 24-09-1997 vide SC No. 162/1996 by the Hon'ble IInd M.M. Court. Hyd. 9 -do- Cr. No. 19/99 U/s. 302, 120-B r/w. 34 IPC The case acquitted U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. vide S.C. No. 354/2000 on 12-01-2001 by the Hon'ble Ist Addl. M.S.J. Court. Hyd. 10 -do- Cr. No. 119/16 U/s. 420, 468, 471 IPC & Sec. 12(1)(b) of passport Act 1967 The Case is Convicted RI on 07.08.2018 for 7½ years against A1 to A4. Vide C.C. No. 202/2017. by the Hon'ble CMM Court, Nampally. 11 -do- Cr. No. 31/2018, U/s. 384, 506 109 R/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 10-10-2019. Vide. C.C. No. 576/2018 by the Hon'ble CMM Court. Nampally. 12 PS HUSSAINIALAM Cr. No. 11/89 U/s. 392 IPC The case is acquitted on 20-06-1992. 13 -do- Cr. No. 07/90 U/s. 307 IPC The case is acquitted on 11-05-1992 14 -do- Cr. 11 -do- Cr. No. 31/2018, U/s. 384, 506 109 R/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 10-10-2019. Vide. C.C. No. 576/2018 by the Hon'ble CMM Court. Nampally. 12 PS HUSSAINIALAM Cr. No. 11/89 U/s. 392 IPC The case is acquitted on 20-06-1992. 13 -do- Cr. No. 07/90 U/s. 307 IPC The case is acquitted on 11-05-1992 14 -do- Cr. No. 218/90 U/s. 147, 148, 307, r/w. 427 IPC The case transferred to Detective Department on 29-10-1990 15 -do- Cr. No. 222/90 U/s. 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w. 149 IPC The case transferred to Detective Department on 01-11-1990 16 -do- Cr. No. 91/92 U/s. 307, 332, 324 r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 22-06-1995. 17 -do- Cr. No. 187/96 U/s. 25(1)(a) Arms Act The case is acquitted on 07-07-1997 18 -do- Cr. No. 24/97 U/s. 384, 511 IPC The case is acquitted on 02-04-1998. 19 -do- Cr. No. 115/99 U/s. 448, 506, 307, 384 r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 03-03-2009 20 -do- Cr. No. 83/02 U/s. 302 r/w. 34 IPC & Sec. 25(1)(a) Arms act The case is convicted on 04-05-2010 sent life imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- line. 21 -do- Cr. No. 61/08 U/s. 147, 148, 448, 506 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 11-05-2009 22 -do- Cr. No. 279/2016 U/s. 448, 506 r/w. 34 IPC, 25(1)(b) Arms Act. The case is acquitted on 24-05-2018. Vide. C.C. No. 316/2017 by the Hon'ble CMM Court, Nampally. 23 PS SHAHALIBANDA Cr. No. 45/90 U/s. 302 IPC The case is acquitted on 20-08-1996 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 24 -do- Cr. No. 46/90 U/s. 302 IPC The case is acquitted on 20-08-1996 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 25 -do- Cr. No. 47/90 U/s. 302 IPC The case is acquitted on 20-08-1996 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 26 -do- Cr. No. 48/90 U/s. 302 IPC The case is acquitted on 20-08-1996 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 27 -do- Cr. No. 50/90 U/s. 147, 148, 427 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 02-03-2001 by XVIth MM Court. 28 -do- Cr. No. 51/90 U/s. 147, 148, 436 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-10-2000 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 29 -do- Cr. No. 53/90 U/s. 147, 148, 436, 427, 307 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-10-2000 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 30 -do- Cr. 28 -do- Cr. No. 51/90 U/s. 147, 148, 436 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-10-2000 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 29 -do- Cr. No. 53/90 U/s. 147, 148, 436, 427, 307 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-10-2000 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 30 -do- Cr. No. 56/90 U/s. 147, 148, 436 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-10-2000 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 31 -do- Cr. No. 61/90 U/s. 147, 148, 307 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-10-2000 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 32 -do- Cr. No. 62/90 U/s. 147, 436 r/w. 149 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-10-2000 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court 33 -do- Cr. No. 01/91 U/s. 147, 148, 436 r/w. 149 IPC & Sec. 3 of TADA Act The case is acquitted on 30-10-2000 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 34 -do- Cr. No. 05/91 U/s. 147, 148, 436 r/w. 149 IPC & Sec. 3 of TADA Act The case is closed as UN on 30-11-1991. 35 -do- Cr. No. 09/91 U/s. 147, 148, 436 r/w. 149 IPC & Sec. 3 of TADA Act The case is acquitted on 13-03-2001 by IVth Addl. M.S.J. Court. 36 -do- Cr. No. 22/91 U/s. 147, 148, 380 r/w. 149 IPC & Sec. 3 of TADA Act The case is acquitted on 02-03-2001 by XVIth M.M. Court. 37 -do- Cr. No. 193/91 U/s. 324 IPC The case is acquitted on 28-06-1996 by XVIth M.M. Court. 38 -do- Cr. No. 221/91 U/s. 324 IPC The case is compromised U/s. 320 Cr.P.C. on 3-11-1992 before Hon'ble XVIth M.M. Court. 39 -do- Cr. No. 37/97 U/s. Sec 25(1)(a) Arms Act The case is acquitted on 21-01-1998 by Hon'ble XVIth M.M. Court. 40 -do- Cr. No. 22/98 U/s. 302 IPC The case is acquitted on 26-02-2003 by Hon'ble IVth Addl. MSJ Court. 41 -do- Cr. No. 54/05 U/s. 342, 506, 323 r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 24-04-2009 by Hon'ble XVIth A.C.M.M. Court vide U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. 42 -do- Cr. No. 06/07 U/s. 147, 148, 307, 427, 353 r/w. 149 IPC & Sec 25(1)(a) Arms Act. The case is acquitted on 15-12-2010 by Hon'ble Ist. M.S.J. Court. 43 -do- Cr. No. 145/14 U/s. 448, 506 IPC & sec. 4 of Land Grabbing Act 1982 The case is acquitted on 11-05-2018. Vide. C.C. No. 1380/2017 by the Hon'ble III ACMM Court, Nampally. The case is acquitted on 15-12-2010 by Hon'ble Ist. M.S.J. Court. 43 -do- Cr. No. 145/14 U/s. 448, 506 IPC & sec. 4 of Land Grabbing Act 1982 The case is acquitted on 11-05-2018. Vide. C.C. No. 1380/2017 by the Hon'ble III ACMM Court, Nampally. 44 PS KALAPATHER Cr. No. 14/90 U/s. IPC The case is acquitted. 45 -do- Cr. No. 76/91 U/s. 302 IPC The case is acquitted. 46 -do- Cr. No. 34/05 U/s. Sec 25(1)(a) Arms Act The case is P.T. 47 -do- Cr. No. 63/14 U/s. 41(a) /107 CrPC The case is band over. 48 PS CHANDRAYANA GUTTA Cr. No. 43/00 U/s. 341, 506, 384, 365 r/w. 511 IPC & Sec 25(1)(a) Arms Act & Sec. 7(1) of Criminal Amendment Act. 1932 The case is acquitted on 26-09-2003 by Hon'ble Ist Addl. M.S.J. Court vide U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. 49 -do- Cr. No. 56/00 U/s. 302, 120-B r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 19-02-2016 by Hon'ble Ist Addl. M.S.J. Court vide U/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. 50 -do- Cr. No. 475/16 U/s. 341, 120-B r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted by the Hon'ble CMM Court, Nampally. 51 PS NAMPALLY Cr. No. 212/2003 U/s. 341, 351, 506 r/w. 34 IPC The case was referred as Lack of Evidence on 20-12-2003 52 -do- Cr. No. 211/14 U/s. 341, 323, 506 IPC & Sec. 7(1) of Criminal Amendment Act. 1932 The case squashed by Hon'ble High Court on 05-03-2016. 53 PS GOLCONDA Cr. No. 395/2016 U/s. 420, 468, 471 IPC of PS Golconda The case is acquitted. 54 PS DABEERPURA Cr. No. 120/05 U/s. 384 IPC The case is acquitted on 09-07-2016 by Hon'ble VIII ACMM Court vide U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. C.C. No. 345/08 55 -do- Cr. No. 131/04 U/s. 147, 506 IPC The case is acquitted on 09-07-2016 by Hon'ble VIII ACMM Court vide U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. C.C. No. 365/08 56 PS BAHADURPUR A Cr. No. 54/96 U/s. 307 r/w. 34 IPC & Sec. 25(1)(A) Arms Act. The case is acquitted on 25-09-2001 vide SC No. 60/1999 by Hon'ble IIIrd Addl. MSJ Court. 57 -do- Cr. No. 77/03 U/s. 348, 506, r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-11-2004 vide CC No. 6/2004 by Hon'ble IInd M.M. Court, Hyd. 58 PS CHADHERGHAT Cr. No. 391/14 U/s. 453, 506, r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 16-11-2015 by the Hon'ble VIIIth A.C.M.M. Court, Hyd. MSJ Court. 57 -do- Cr. No. 77/03 U/s. 348, 506, r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 30-11-2004 vide CC No. 6/2004 by Hon'ble IInd M.M. Court, Hyd. 58 PS CHADHERGHAT Cr. No. 391/14 U/s. 453, 506, r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 16-11-2015 by the Hon'ble VIIIth A.C.M.M. Court, Hyd. 59 -do- Cr. No. 393/14 U/s. 387, 506, r/w. 34 IPC The case is acquitted on 16-11-2015 by the Hon'ble VIIIth A.C.M.M. Court, Hyd. 60 PS SANTHOSH NAGAR Cr. No. 72/08 U/s. 384, 420, 506, r/w. 109, 34 IPC & Sec 25(1)(a) Arms Act The case is acquitted on 02-11-2009 by the Hon'ble VIIth A.C.M.M. Court Hyd. Vide. CC No. 19/2009. 61 PS RIENBAZAR Cr. No. 170/05 U/s. 147, 148, 302, 201, 120-B r/w. 149 IPC & Sec 25(1)(a) Arms Act The case is acquitted on 05-01-2009 vide CC No. 210/2007. 62 -do- Cr. No. 94/18 U/s. 341, 506, 507, 109 r/w. 34 IPC The case is in P.T. Vide. C.C. No. 6392/2019 in the Hon'ble VIII ACMM Nampally. 63 PS MOGHALPURA Cr. No. 33/08 U/s. 506 IPC The case is acquitted on 06-11-2009 by Hon'ble VIII A.C.M.M. Court, Hyd. 64 PS S.R. NAGAR Cr. No. 507/04 U/s. 365, 395 IPC & Sec 25(1)(b) Arms Act The case was ended in acquittal vide SC No. 541/2007 by Hon'ble III Addl. MSJ Court, Nampally. 65 PS MARKET Cr. No. 72/08 U/s. 120(b) r/w. 379, 384 IPC & Sec 25(1)(b) Arms Act & 20 NDS Act The accused acquitted on 23-06-2010 vide SC No, 311/2009 in the Hon'ble MSJ Court, Hyd. 66 PS MAILARDEV PALLY Cr. No. 266/05 U/s. Sec 25(1)(b) Arms Act Executed NBW against the Ayub Khan and the case is in pending Trial. 67. PS PAHADISHARIF Cr. No. 120/05 U/s. 302, 201, 120-B IPC The case was ended in acquitted on 03-07-2009 by Hon'ble Ist Addl. M.S.J. Court, S.C. No. 65/2010 68 PS CHARMIINAR Cr. No. 145/2018 U/s. 148, 448, 457, 452, 341, 427, 506, 109, 384 R/W. 149 IPC The case in P.T. vide. C.C. No. 928/2019 in the Hon'ble CMM Court, Nampally 13. No. 120/05 U/s. 302, 201, 120-B IPC The case was ended in acquitted on 03-07-2009 by Hon'ble Ist Addl. M.S.J. Court, S.C. No. 65/2010 68 PS CHARMIINAR Cr. No. 145/2018 U/s. 148, 448, 457, 452, 341, 427, 506, 109, 384 R/W. 149 IPC The case in P.T. vide. C.C. No. 928/2019 in the Hon'ble CMM Court, Nampally 13. The learned Public Prosecutor has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 12 SCC 129 , Hussain vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Bhim Singh vs. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 . 14. By referring to the above submissions and the decisions, the learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present application. 15. The record would reveal that the petitioner-accused No. 1 was remanded on 28.12.2016, released on 07.01.2018 and surrendered on 01.11.2018. Thus, he is in jail for a period of three (03) years, one (01) month and twenty seven (27) days so far. 16. As stated above, the petitioner herein has involved in 68 cases, the details of which are shown in the list in a tabular form mentioned above. Detention order was passed against the petitioner herein under Preventive Detention Act. However, this Court has quashed the same. He was acquitted in many of the cases. It is relevant to point out that during pendency of C.C. No. 202 of 2017, the petitioner herein has involved in three crimes, viz. Crime Nos. 31, 82 and 94 of 2018 on the file of Kamatipura, Falaknuma and Rein Bazar Police Stations respectively for various offences. However, the cases in Crime Nos. 31 of 2018 and 82 of 2018 were ended in acquittal. 17. It is also relevant to note that after conviction in C.C. 202 of 2017, when sentence of imprisonment was suspended for temporary period, the petitioner-accused No. 1 has again involved in another case viz. Crime No. 145 of 2018 on the file of Charminar Police Station for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 341, 506, 148, 457, 452, 109, 384 and 149 of IPC. The said case is also pending for trial. 18. The above stated aspects would reveal that the petitioner has continuously involved in various criminal cases while he was enlarged on bail in C.C. No. 202 of 2017. 19. The said case is also pending for trial. 18. The above stated aspects would reveal that the petitioner has continuously involved in various criminal cases while he was enlarged on bail in C.C. No. 202 of 2017. 19. Section 436A of the Code deals with ‘maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained’ and it may extend up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence, and he shall be released by the Court on his execution of personal bond with or without sureties. Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties. Therefore, there is no bar under Section 436A of the Code to continue the detention of the petitioner in the present case. The only requirement under the said provision is that the Court has to record the reasons. 20. In Bhim Singh, (2015) 13 SCC 605 , the Apex Court held that having given thoughtful consideration to the legislative policy engrafted in Section 436A of the Code and large number of under-trial prisoners housed in the prisons, some order deserves to be passed by it so that the under-trial prisoners do not continue to be detained in prison beyond the maximum period provided under Section 436A of the Code. Accordingly, the Apex Court has directed the jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge shall hold one sitting in a week in each jail/prison for two months commencing from 1st October, 2014 for the purposes of effective implementation of 436A of the Code. In its sittings in jail, the judicial officers shall identify the under-trial prisoners who have completed half period of the maximum period or maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under the law and after complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 436A of the Code pass an appropriate order in jail itself for release of such under-trial prisoners who fulfill the requirement of Section 436A of the Code for their release immediately. Such jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge shall submit the report of each of such sitting to the Registrar General of the High Court and at the end of two months, the Registrar General of each High Court shall submit the report to the Secretary General of this Court without any delay. 21. In Anil Kumar Yadav (2018) 12 SCC 129 , the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the said provision, and after referring to its earlier judgment in Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180 , held in paragraph No. 30, which is as under: “30. We are conscious of the fact that the Appellants are only under trials and their liberty is also a relevant consideration. But equally important is to consider the impact of their release on bail on the prosecution witnesses and also its impact on society. In order to ensure that during trial the material witnesses depose without fear and justice being done to the society, a balance has to be struck. Referring to Masroor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 286 and other cases, in State of Bihar vs. Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , this Court held as under: 26. We are conscious of the fact that the Respondent is only an under trial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration. However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair trial of the case. Thus, undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of the Accused persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the Accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the Accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty of the Accused on the one hand and interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice-delivery system. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice-delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice-delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations. After all, if there is a threat to fair trial because of intimidation of witnesses, etc., that would happen because of wrongdoing of the Accused himself and the consequences thereof, he has to suffer........” 22. In Hussain (2017) 5 SCC 702 , the Apex Court held that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. This Court has held that while a person in custody for a grave offence may not be released if trial is delayed, trial has to be expedited or bail has to be granted in such cases. Timely, delivery of justice is a part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice. The Apex court has also referred to the directions issued by it in Noor Mohammed vs. Jethanand, (2013) 5 SCC 202 . By referring to the same, the Apex Court has formulated directions which are as follows: “22. Having regard to the above background, we now proceed to formulate our directions in the following terms: (i) Until NCMSC formulates a scientific method for determining the basis for computing the required judge strength of the district judiciary, the judge strength shall be computed for each state, in accordance with the interim approach indicated in the note submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC. (ii) NCMSC is requested to endeavour the submission of its final report by 31 December 2017. (ii) NCMSC is requested to endeavour the submission of its final report by 31 December 2017. (iii) A copy of the interim report submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC shall be forwarded by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts and Chief Secretaries of all states within one month so as to enable them to take follow-up action to determine the required judge strength of the district judiciary based on the NCMSC interim report, subject to what has been stated in this judgment. (iv) The state governments shall take up with the High Courts concerned the task of implementing the interim report of the Chairperson, NCMSC (subject to what has been observed above) and take necessary decisions within a period of three months from today for enhancing the required judge strength of each state judiciary accordingly. (v) The state governments shall cooperate in all respects with the High Courts in terms of the resolutions passed in the joint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers in April 2016 with a view to ensuring expeditious disbursal of funds to the state judiciaries in terms of the devolution made under the auspices of the Fourteenth Finance Commission. (vi) The High Courts shall take up the issue of creating additional infrastructure required for meeting the existing sanctioned strength of their state judiciaries and the enhanced strength in terms of the interim recommendation of NCMSC. (vii) The final report submitted by NCMSC may be placed for consideration before the Conference of Chief Justices. The directions in (i) above shall then be subject to the ultimate decision that is taken on receipt of the final report. (viii) A copy of this order shall be made available to the Registrars General of each High Court and to all Chief Secretaries of the States for appropriate action.” 23. The Apex Court further held in the above decision which is as under: “27. To sum up: (i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that: (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week. (b) Magisterial trials, where Accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where Accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years. (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year. (b) Magisterial trials, where Accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where Accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years. (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year. (d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an under trial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such under trial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time. (e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports. (Emphasis added) (ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month and criminal appeals where Accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest. (iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts. (iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time. (v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal (supra).” 24. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, coming to the case on hand, as discussed supra, the petitioner has involved in the above three cases during pendency of C.C. No. 202 of 2017. He has involved in Crime No. 145 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 341, 506, 148, 457, 452, 109, 384 and 149 of IPC i.e., house trespass and extortion etc., when his sentence of imprisonment was suspended for a temporary period. The said case is pending. Thus, the petitioner is a habitual offender. As rightly contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, every time whenever he is enlarged on bail, he is continuously indulging in criminal activities, and there is likelihood of his committing offences if he is released on bail. The said case is pending. Thus, the petitioner is a habitual offender. As rightly contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, every time whenever he is enlarged on bail, he is continuously indulging in criminal activities, and there is likelihood of his committing offences if he is released on bail. At the cost of repetition, it is also trite to note that the petitioner has involved in 68 cases as per the list furnished by the prosecution in a tabular form, which is mentioned above. 25. The learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 24.02.2020 in Crl. Appeal No. 744 of 2018 remanded the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to follow the procedure laid down under Chapters-XVII and XIX of the Code, and frame charges against accused Nos. 1 and 2 as per law by meeting the accusations made against accused Nos. 1 to 6, 8 and 9. The appellate Court has also directed the trial Court to dispose of the said C.C. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six (06) months from the date of receipt of the judgment. 26. On instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has already informed the trial Court that the prosecution is intending to examine the very same witnesses, who were already examined earlier in the said C.C. and also mark the very same documents. The prosecution is going to file a memo to that effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the judgment of the appellate Court is dated 24.02.2020, the trial Court has not concluded trial so far, may be due to COVID-19 pandemic situation. Therefore, there is likelihood of taking considerable time in concluding trial in C.C. No. 202 of 2017. 27. The petitioner herein has filed an application seeking a regular bail vide Electronic M.P. No. 1765 of 2020 before the appellate Court, and the appellate Court vide order dated 22.09.2020 dismissed the same keeping in view the past criminal background of the petitioner and also cancellation of bail during pendency of appeal and its confirmation by this Court etc. In view of the above discussion, this is not a fit case to consider bail application of the petitioner presently. There are no merits in the petition and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed. In view of the above discussion, this is not a fit case to consider bail application of the petitioner presently. There are no merits in the petition and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is needless to mention that this Court has already issued directions to the subordinate Courts to proceed with matters by following SOP issued from time to time. Thus, the trial Court shall dispose of C.C. No. 202 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible by following the SOP issued by this Court from time to time. 29. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.