ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. is filed by petitioner-Accused No. 3 in S.C. No. 5 of 2021 on the file of IX Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Rangareddy District arising out of Crime No. 592 of 2020 on the file of SHO, Gachibowli, Cyberabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B (1), 302, 364, 379, 448, 449, 341, 342, 352, 323 and 506 IPC, seeking bail. 2. The case of prosecution is that on 24.09.2020, at about 18.35 hours, Smt. Chintha Avanthi Reddy lodged a complaint that she married one Hemanth Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in 2020 against the will of her parents and were living separately in TNGO’s colony, Phase-II, Gachibowli. While so, on 24.09.2020, at 14.30 hours, Accused Nos. 9, 15, 10, 8, 13, 16, 14, 1, 12, 17 and some others came in three cars, criminally trespassed into their house, beat them and took them in i20 car of Accused No. 10 and forcibly made them sit in front seat and Accused No. 8 sitting beside her and deceased and all of them informed that they were taking them to her father’s house at Lingampally. However, when the car reached Gopanpally X Road, above accused diverted the car towards outer ring road. Suspecting danger to their lives, both complainant and deceased got down from the car. At that time, Accused No. 1 and others got down from the car and forcibly took the deceased in another car and went towards outer ring road. Meanwhile, in-laws of complainant came to Gopanpally X Roads to rescue her. But the above accused abused and threatened them also with dire consequences. The complainant stated that at the instigation of her father, all the accused persons, who are close relatives, hatched a plan to do away with the life of the deceased, abducted him and beat him. 3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State stating that preliminary investigation disclosed that apart from Accused Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7, Accused Nos. 2, 3, 9, 15, 10, 8, 13, 16, 14, 12, 17, 4, 11 and 18 also involved in abduction and murder of deceased. It is stated that petitioner and her husband i.e. A-2 insisted A-1 to engage hired persons to kill the deceased. 1, 5, 6 and 7, Accused Nos. 2, 3, 9, 15, 10, 8, 13, 16, 14, 12, 17, 4, 11 and 18 also involved in abduction and murder of deceased. It is stated that petitioner and her husband i.e. A-2 insisted A-1 to engage hired persons to kill the deceased. On the day of offence, petitioner, her husband and others gathered at their house, directed A-1 and others to go to the house of deceased, bring her daughter (complainant) and to kill the deceased. Accordingly A-1, A-4 and A-5 abducted the deceased, took him to Sangareddy District, murdered him by strangulation and threw the dead body in open plots of Kistaigudem village. It is stated that call data analysis clearly establishes that A-3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, contacted other accused for commission of offence. It is stated that prior to commission of offence, on the demand made by petitioner, one house property, which was in the name of complainant was transferred in favour of petitioner. It is stated that since the trial has already been commenced, at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of her influencing or threatening the witnesses and may tamper with evidence. 4. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel representing Smt. Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State and Sri L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel representing Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of de facto complainant. 5. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is arrayed as A-3, she was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.09.2020 and ever since she has been languishing in jail. He submits that this is third bail application and the earlier bail application in Crl. Pet. No. 3870 of 2021 was dismissed as withdrawn, whereas Crl. 5. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is arrayed as A-3, she was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.09.2020 and ever since she has been languishing in jail. He submits that this is third bail application and the earlier bail application in Crl. Pet. No. 3870 of 2021 was dismissed as withdrawn, whereas Crl. P. No. 4663 of 2021 was dismissed by this Court on 26.07.2021, wherein it was observed that “considering the fact that it is an honour killing of the husband of de facto complainant, whose evidence is yet to be recorded during the course of trial and the fact that the family members of the petitioner have threatened the in-laws of the de facto complainant, this Court does not find any reasons to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.” Learned senior counsel submits that specific overt acts against the petitioner, who is the mother of de facto complainant is that she made phone calls to A-1 for 18 times, A-2 for 182 times, A-8 for 458 times, A-9 for 12 times, A-10 for 68 times, A-12 for 257 times, A-13 for 6 times, A-14 for 96 times, A-15 for 138 times and A-17 for 10 times and all these accused are family members and when the family members are in distress, all these phone calls were made and that itself cannot make her part of conspiracy. He submits that according to prosecution, A-4 was hired assassin and even as per the charge sheet, petitioner has never called A-4 and basing on the said call data, which are among the family members, it cannot be presumed that petitioner is one of the conspirators. 6. Learned senior counsel submits that other specific overt act against the petitioner is that the property which stands in the name of de facto complainant i.e. Plot No. 14 in Sy. No. 159 in an extent of 300 sq. yards in Vidyanagar Colony, Chandranagar vide document No. 3195 of 2020 dated 19.06.2020 a SRO, Sherilingamppally was transferred in the name of petitioner. He submits that except the call data and transfer of house plot, there is no whisper against the petitioner except stating that petitioner has conspired with other family members and she is also part of heinous crime that is committed. He submits that except the call data and transfer of house plot, there is no whisper against the petitioner except stating that petitioner has conspired with other family members and she is also part of heinous crime that is committed. He submits that neither in the charge sheet nor in the supplementary charge sheet it is stated that immediately after commission of offence, so many calls were made to the petitioner either by A-1 or A-4. He relief on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and Others, (2018) 7 SCC 192 . He submits that basing on these allegations it cannot be said that petitioner is also part of conspiracy. It is submitted that in the supplementary charge sheet as per the expert opinion the voice samples are probably spoken by the petitioner, whereas for the other accused it is stated that they are spoken by them with good probability. 7. It is submitted that other women family members, who were arrayed as A-12, A-15 and A-16 were granted bail by this Court by order dated 19.01.2021 in Crl. Pet. No. 6777 of 2020, wherein it was observed that accused were having children and their husbands were also in judicial custody, as the upkeep of children would be affected, more so being looked down in the society, as no children/friends would come forward to play with them without even knowing as to why they are receiving such treatment all of a sudden, having a lasting impact on the young minds and also taking note of the fact that the charge sheet in the crime having been filed, this Court was inclined to grant bail. He submits that even the said order clearly applies to the petitioner also, as her husband i.e. A-2 is also languishing in jail. He further submits that after filing earlier bail application, 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs. 1 to 3 were recorded, trial was also commenced and cross examination of PW-1 is going on. He submits that though the schedule was fixed from 29.11.2021 to 14.02.2022, now the learned Sessions Judge has requested six more months time to complete the trial. He submits that petitioner is aged about 45 years, suffering from health ailments. 8. 1 to 3 were recorded, trial was also commenced and cross examination of PW-1 is going on. He submits that though the schedule was fixed from 29.11.2021 to 14.02.2022, now the learned Sessions Judge has requested six more months time to complete the trial. He submits that petitioner is aged about 45 years, suffering from health ailments. 8. Learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 wherein it was held thus: 15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in paragraph 2 of his counter affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille. 9. Learned senior counsel submits that petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. He submits that while granting bail, the Court has to take into consideration, the nature of allegations and in the event petitioner is enlarged on bail, its impact on the investigation, however in this case, entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and prima facie, allegations in the charge sheet do not make out case against the petitioner and further, petitioner cannot be termed as part of honour killing and as already other accused were granted bail, her case may be considered for grant of bail. 10. 10. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner and her husband i.e. A-2 insisted A-1 to engage hired persons to kill the deceased and on the day of offence, petitioner, her husband and others gathered at their house, directed A-1 and others to go to the house of deceased, bring her daughter (complainant) and to kill the deceased. Accordingly A-1, A-4 and A-5 abducted deceased, took him to Sangareddy District, murdered him by strangulation and threw the dead body in open plots of Kistaigudem village. He submits that call data analysis clearly establishes that A-3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, contacted other accused for commission of offence. He further submits that prior to commission of offence, on the demand made by petitioner, one house property, which was in the name of complainant was transferred in favour of petitioner. He further submits that in view of serious nature of allegations and this case being honour killing, bail applications filed by A-11, A-13 and A-14 vide Crl. Pet. Nos. 9150 of 2021 and 6868 of 2021 were dismissed by this Court by order dated 15.12.2021 and 25.11.2021. He submits that trial has already been commenced, at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of her influencing or threatening the witnesses and may tamper with evidence. 11. Sri L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel representing Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of de facto complainant submits that petitioner could not make out any reasonable ground for grant of bail. He submits that in the charge sheet it has been specifically stated that petitioner is part of conspiracy and when the de facto complainant wanted to marry the deceased, she was confined in the house, her phone was taken and pressure was mounted on PW-1, which reveals the role of petitioner in committing this offence and this being case of honour killing, petitioner is not entitled for bail. Learned senior counsel submits that it is stated that petitioner is suffering from health ailments, but no piece of paper is filed to substantiate the same. He submits that another reason that is stated is that she has to take care of her mother, but admittedly her mother is staying with her son, as such the said ground is also not sustainable. He submits that another reason that is stated is that she has to take care of her mother, but admittedly her mother is staying with her son, as such the said ground is also not sustainable. He further submits that in case of other accused i.e. A-12, A-15 and A-16 this Court granted bail not only on the ground that husbands of said accused were also in jail, but also on the ground that they are having small children, as such that order will not apply to the case of petitioner. He submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood that she may influence/threaten the witnesses and at this stage, she is not entitled for bail. 12. Learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mamata Nair vs. State of Rajasthan and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2021 and SLP (Crl) No. 3679 of 2021 dated 12.07.2021, wherein it was held thus: “7. The documents already taken note by this Court indicates that there is prima facie material against the respondent No. 2. Though the appellant herein, i.e., the wife of the deceased has been examined and a contention has been put forth with regard to her statement, it is not the evidence in its entirety and it is premature to conclude on the basis of a stray sentence. Further, merely classifying the appellant as the principal star witness and referring to her statement is of no consequence since the entire evidence will have to be assessed by the Sessions Court before arriving at a conclusion. If that be the position when this Court at an earlier instance had taken note of all aspects and had arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie material against the respondent No. 2, the mere examination of the appellant herein cannot be considered as a change in circumstance for the High Court to consider the fourth bail application of the respondent No. 2 and enlarge him on bail.” He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Girraj vs. Kiranpal and Another, (2021) 6 SCC 205 wherein it was held thus: “9. The above narration of facts makes it abundantly clear that the first order granting bail dated 5 August 2020 was in the case of co-accused Narendra. The above narration of facts makes it abundantly clear that the first order granting bail dated 5 August 2020 was in the case of co-accused Narendra. All the other accused while claiming the grant of bail had specifically relied upon the order passed in the case of Narendra and sought bail on the basis of parity. Following the principle of parity, the High Court enlarged them on bail. 10. Now, the order granting bail to Narendra was the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2020 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5537 of 2020 (Girraj vs. Narendra @ Munder and Another). By the judgment and order of this Court dated 11 December 2020, the order granting bail to Narendra was set aside. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment of this Court read as follows: “9. While analyzing the rival submissions, we must at the outset note the considerations which weighed with the High Court. The High Court has basically adverted to the following reasons: 9.1. The first respondent has no criminal history. 9.2. Indiscriminate firing is stated to have been made by all the accused including the first respondent upon Jeetu and the two deceased and hence it cannot be determined who has caused the injuries. 9.3. Taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence and period of detention, the case was found fit for grant of bail. 10. The last of the observations above, is an omnibus observation. The serious nature of the offence and the quantum of punishment would, as explained hereafter, militate against the grant of bail in the facts of the present case. As a matter of fact, it is evident from the earlier part of the observations of the High Court which have been extracted above, that the Court did notice the fact that it is alleged that there was indiscriminate firing by the side of the accused including the first respondent. The attention of the court has been drawn to the fact that in the statement of one of the injured, Jeetu, it has been specifically stated that the first respondent was among those who had fired at the deceased and Jeetu. The attention of the court has been drawn to the fact that in the statement of one of the injured, Jeetu, it has been specifically stated that the first respondent was among those who had fired at the deceased and Jeetu. Above all, the High Court has completely ignored the circumstance that in terms of the allegations in the FIR, there was an unlawful assembly and it is as a consequence of this that the provisions of Section 149 have been attracted. 11. A serious offence has taken place involving the death of two sons of the appellant. Though, the High Court has referred to the nature of the offence, it has failed to notice that the seriousness of the offence in the present case would militate against the grant of bail in a case such as the present, where there are not only specific allegations in the FIR, but the statement of one of the injured witnesses. The High Court has also ignored the allegation of enmity between the two groups on account of party politics, which have allegedly translated into instances of threats and assault of appellant’s sons as discussed above. Moreover, the submission of the first respondent that the failure of the police to register an FIR at the behest of the accused led them to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is clearly indicative of the fact that prima facie at this stage, the presence of the first respondent cannot reasonably be doubted. In his counter affidavit, the first respondent had, in fact, sought to explain his presence by stating that he was merely passing from the place.” 16. We are unable to accede to the submission which was urged on behalf of the respondent-accused in these proceedings. We are not at this stage dealing a finding arrived at in the course of a criminal trial on the basis of evidence. Serious offences are alleged to have been committed in the course of the incident, leading up to the death of two sons of the informant and serious injuries to others.” 13. Learned senior counsel submits that delay in concluding the trial itself is not a ground for granting bail. Serious offences are alleged to have been committed in the course of the incident, leading up to the death of two sons of the informant and serious injuries to others.” 13. Learned senior counsel submits that delay in concluding the trial itself is not a ground for granting bail. Further there are no changed circumstances and this Court while rejecting bail application of petitioner categorically observed that in cases of honour killing, the Courts must be cautious in releasing the accused on bail, particularly, when a hostile, belligerent and remorseless attitude is exhibited by the accused and the Courts should always be circumspect in releasing such suspects before the completion of trial. It was further observed that after commission of offence, the family of petitioner further resorted to threaten the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of de facto complainant with dire consequences, upon which a case in Crime No. 237 of 2021 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, has been registered. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage and this petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. 15. The petitioner is arrayed as A-3 and as submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that specific overt acts as culled out from the charge sheet are that on the day of offence, petitioner, her husband and others gathered at their house, directed A-1 and others to go to the house of deceased, bring her daughter (complainant) and to kill the deceased and further prior to commission of offence, on the demand made by petitioner, one house property, which was in the name of de facto complainant was transferred in favour of petitioner. It is also specifically stated in the charge sheet that when the de facto complainant wanted to marry deceased, petitioner along with A-2 confined her in the house and her telephone was taken away. Further, petitioner has contacted other family members on phone several times which establishes her role in the conspiracy. 16. It is well settled that while granting or refusing bail, Court should exercise judicious discretion. Court should also not undertake detailed examination of evidence on the merits of the case as it would prejudice the case of accused/prosecution at the time of trial. 16. It is well settled that while granting or refusing bail, Court should exercise judicious discretion. Court should also not undertake detailed examination of evidence on the merits of the case as it would prejudice the case of accused/prosecution at the time of trial. However, while granting bail Court has to prima facie record reasons for granting or refusing the bail particularly in cases of grave offences like in the present case, which is a case of honour killing. Further while granting bail, Court has to look at the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence/threatening the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 17. It is argued on behalf of the complaint that this Court has already dismissed the bail petition moved by the petitioner and as there are no changed circumstances she is not entitled for bail. In response to the same, on behalf of petitioner, it is contended that as on that day 164 Cr.P.C. statement is not recorded and now the entire investigation is completed and trial was also commenced. 18. The accused has every right to move successive applications for grant of bail. The Court while entertaining the subsequent bail application is duty bound to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and also to record reasons for taking a different view and granting bail. Hence, this Court is not able to appreciate the contention of the respondent that the successive bail applications cannot be maintained. 19. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the “pointing finger of accusation” against the appellants is “the seriousness of the charge.” The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather “recalibrating the scales of justice.” The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather “recalibrating the scales of justice.” The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. In Bihar Fodder Scam [Laloo Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 9 SCC 372] this Court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period of more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pretrial prisoners would not serve any purpose. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI. Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 20. This is a case of honour killing. Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense, consists in the ability to choose. Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 20. This is a case of honour killing. Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense, consists in the ability to choose. When the ability to choose is crushed in the name of class honour and the person’s physical frame is treated with absolute indignity, a chilling effect dominates over the brains and bones of the society at large. The question that poignantly emanates for consideration is whether the elders of the family or clan can ever be allowed to proclaim a verdict guided by some notion of passion and eliminate the life of the young who have exercised their choice to get married against the wishes of their elders or contrary to the customary practice of the clan. The answer has to be an emphatic “No.” It is because the sea of liberty and the ingrained sense of dignity do not countenance such treatment inasmuch as the pattern of behaviour is based on some extra-constitutional perception. Class honour, howsoever perceived, cannot smother the choice of an individual which he or she is entitled to enjoy under our compassionate Constitution. And this right of enjoyment of liberty deserves to be continually and zealously guarded so that it can thrive with strength and flourish with resplendence. Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and Others (supra) 21. These cases of honour killing strikes the conscience of any society and while dealing with these cases and granting bail Court has to take into consideration several aspects. In the case on hand, this Court has dismissed the bail petition by order dated 26.07.2021 observing that “considering the fact that it is an honour killing of the husband of de facto complainant, whose evidence is yet to be recorded during the course of trial and the fact that the family members of the petitioner have threatened the in-laws of the de facto complainant, this Court does not find any reasons to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.” Admittedly, as of now 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded and trial is also commenced. In the earlier order Court has also taken into consideration the case being a case of honour killing Court has to be circumspect while granting bail. It is the apprehension of respondent that if she is enlarged on bail, she may threaten the witnesses. In the earlier order Court has also taken into consideration the case being a case of honour killing Court has to be circumspect while granting bail. It is the apprehension of respondent that if she is enlarged on bail, she may threaten the witnesses. There must be some prima facie evidence and some reasonable ground to believe the same. Nothing has been placed on record in that regard. The Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases has confirmed that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive but to secure the presence of the accused. It is also reiterated in several cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court that keeping large number of accused/under-trials behind the bars without trial for long time cannot be regarded as “reasonable, just, fair.” Detaining the under-trial prisoners for long period is gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Keeping the accused in custody indefinitely till completion of trial is violation of personal liberty. 22. Looking at the allegations in the charge sheet, it is the case of prosecution that all the accused including petitioner collaborated together and hatched a conspiracy to do away with the life of deceased only for the reason that the deceased who belongs to Vysya community, has fallen in love with daughter of petitioner, belonging to Reddy community. Taking into consideration the observation of this Court while rejecting bail to the petitioner, charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet, prima facie this Court is of the view that except the call data that petitioner has called other family members and the transfer of plot, there are no other overt acts against the petitioner. Already in this case, entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has already addressed a letter seeking extension of time for six more months for completing the trial. Petitioner is languishing in jail from 25.09.2020 and her husband and other male members are in judicial remand, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail, however on certain conditions. 23. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has already addressed a letter seeking extension of time for six more months for completing the trial. Petitioner is languishing in jail from 25.09.2020 and her husband and other male members are in judicial remand, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail, however on certain conditions. 23. In the result, criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner/A-3 shall be enlarged on bail in connection with S.C. No. 5 of 2021 on the file of IX Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Rangareddy District arising out of Crime No. 592 of 2020 on the file of SHO, Gachibowli, Cyberabad District on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses and shall appear before the trial Court on each and every adjournment. The petitioner shall not enter the limits of Gachibowli and Ramachandrapuram Police Stations and shall reside in the limits of L.B. Nagar Police Station till completion of trial. In case of violation of any of the conditions, prosecution is at liberty to file appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail. 24. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.