The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS Act,2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the tvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail in SC No. 5 of 2021 on the file of the lX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (Crime No. 592 ot 2020 of P.S. Gachibowli, Cyberabad), in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VR Avula representing Sri Pasha Pasham Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners in both CRLPs and Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in both CRLPs and Sri S Goutham, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in both CRLPS. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUCTOPAL ' CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 11887 & 11910 0F 2024 COMMON RDER: These criminal petitions are flled under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to grant bail to the petitioners/Al & A6 respectively in SC No.S ol 2O2l on the file of the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, registered for the offences under Sections 120Et(l), 3O2, 364, 379, 44a, 449, 341, 342, 352, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (lPC).

2. In both these matters, this Court heard Sri VR Avula, iearned senior counsel representing Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistart Public Frosecutor for the state/ lst respondent and Sri s.Goutham, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent/de-facto complainant.

3. Basing on the complaint dated 24.O9.2O2O,lodged by the de-facto complainant/ ttre 2r'd respondent herein, the police of Gachibowli registered a crime in FIR No.592 of 2O2O for the offences under Sections 365, 452,5O9, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC alleging t1at the accused have illegally trespassed into the house of tl.e de-facto complainant, beat her husband and took her and her husband in a-car 2 stating that they were taking them to her parents but when the de-facto complainant and her husband observed that they were taking to somewhere else they jumped from the car and when they were running towards Lingampally, Yugender Reddy/Al along with others came in a car, beat them and took her husband forcibly but when the other accused tried to catch the de-facto complainant, her inlaws came to her rescue and upon watching them, the accused abused and threatened them with dire consequences and fled away. The de-facto complainant alleged that having been instigated by her parents, the accused committed such offence since she loved and married a person, who does not belong to their caste, against the wishes of her parents I and relatives.

4. The investigating officer laid charge-sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 18 alleging that during the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 6, who are the petitioners herein, have confessed that on the date of offence, they along witJl other accused have forcibly abducted the de-facto complainant and her husband in the car of A.Rakesh Reddy/AlO and when the victims jumped from the car to escape, the petitioners along with accused Nos.S and 7 with the assistance of accused Nos.S, 9, 10 and 12 to 17 abducted the husband of de-facto complainant viz. Hemanth from Gopanpally X Roads and accused Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 took him towards Sangareddy in a car and murdered 3 him by strangulation at Kistaigudem Village in the outskirts of Sangareddy Town and thrown the body in the said open plots. It is further alleged in the charge-sheet that as per their confession and direction the police have recovered the dead body of Hemanth from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, de-facto complainant and parents of the deceased and that the de-facto complaint and parents of the deceased identified the dead body as that of Hemanth Kumar' They noticed that the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with ropes and his neck was tied tightly with jute rope. As per orders dated 2g.lO.2O2O in Crl.M.P.No .56 of 2O2O on the ltle of the learned XII AMM, Kukatpally A1 and A,2 were subjected to police custody for the period from 30.O9.202O to O5.1O.2020.

5. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that on O1-10'2O2O accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed that the deceased and the de-facto complainant fell in love and married on 10.06.202O in Santhoshimatha Temple, BHEL Road and got their marriage registered at Qutbullapur SRO Oflice, having dislike in the said inter-caste marriage, accused Nos'2 and 3, who are the parents of de-facto compiainant, got registered a crime in FIR No.436 ol 2O2O before Chandanagar Police Station complaining that her daughter/de-facto complainant was missing and when the de-facto complainant was called and tried to convince, she did noL-h&d to the words of accused Nos. 1 to 3 ald transferred the I 4 properties purchased in her name in favour of accused Nos.3, 8 and 1O. Even though the accused Nos. 1 to 3 decided to hire men to kill Hemanth and bring back the de-facto complainant back to her parents and executed such plan with the help of other accused. Accused No.l was sent to SFSL for comparison with the images collected from the CC TV footage. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that SFSL confirmed the identity of the accused No.l as that'of the person appearing in the said CC TV footage. The call data records and iocation of cell phones of the accused during the time of 'commission of offence proved the conversation arnong the accused and their involvement in the offence. LWIO, eyewitness, identified accused Nos.S, 6 and 9 during test identification parade stating that they are the persons who abducted the deceased. It is further alleged in the charge-sheet that accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 took the deceased in the car and thereafter, accused No.6 caught hotd the deceased and accused Nos.l and 5 strangulated the deceased with jute rope, purchased by accused No.l. Later, they committed theft of cell phone and gold ornaments from the body of the deceased and thrown the body into the nearby herbs. The investigating officer collected material objects and recorded ttre statements of the witnesses and laid charge-sheet against tJle accused for the offences under Section 120-8(1), 3O2, 364,379,448, 449,341, 342,352,323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC 5

6. The contentions advanced on behalf of accused No.1 in Crl.P.No. 11887 of 2024 are that he is a diabetic patient, his mother is aged about 75 years, suffering from kidney problem and is under medication, his father is about 80 years old, suffering from diabetic and bronchitis, his wile is suffering from stomach problem and underwent a surgery, and that the petitioner is the only bread winner of their family and due to his long incarceration in the jall, his enlire family including his wife and small children, are subjected to starvation. It is further contended that basing on the statements of parents of the deceased, he was falsely implicated in the present case only on the sole ground that during covid pandemic, he being a relative of accused Nos.2 and 3, spoke with them. His involvement, basing on the CC TV footage and call data records, is the subject matter of trial.

7. The contentions advanced on behalf of accused No.6 in Crl.P.No. 1 191 O of 2024 are that his wife is under medication for a surgery and she is unable to do any work to maintain his tendering aged daughter and son and due to his prolonged incarceration in jail, his family is subjected to starvation, he was falsely implicated in the present case without naming him as an accused in the FIR and only to safeguard the higher personalities, he was implicated in tJle present C SC I I 6

8. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners/Al and A6 in both these criminal petitions that the petitioners became handicapped in assisting their advocate to defend themselves, having been influenced by the de-facto complainant, the police have falsely implicated them in the present case, though the body was recovered from the jurisdiction of Sanga Reddy, the case is registered in Gachibowli, except the ofhcial witnesses, recording of evidence of witnesses, numbering to 53, is completed, and hence, evidence by the petitioners cannot be a ground to petitioners for indelinite incarceration on tfre edifice of weak and inconsistent case of prosecution. It is further contended that the tampering of confine the petitioners are law abiding citizens without any criminal antecedents and that accused Nos.2, 3, 7, a,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, lS, 16, t7 and 18 are granted bail and that the petitioners are languishing in jail from 26.09.2020 and hence, they may also be enlarged on bail by maintaining the principle of parity. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in various occasions held that bail is right, and the jail is an exception and that without .onuictirr'g the accused, he cannot be kept in jail on the ground that there may be chance of tampering of evidence. Earlier bail applications of accused No.1 in Crl.p.No. 1547 of 2024 and accused No.6 in Crl.p.No. 1157a of 2O2S were dismissed. In_ spite of specific directions to conclude the trial as expeditiousry as possible, the trial is getting delayed and in the event of the petitioners J 7 getting acquittal, the life spent by the petitioner in jail cannot be compensated. Continuation of the petitioners in jail for indehnite period is nothing but violation of Article 21 of the Constitution' The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of granting bail' 9 . While seeking bail the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions rendered in Shakti Vahini Vs'Union of India and othersl, Arvind Kejriwal Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation2' order of High Court of Calcutta in CRR No'3593 of 2fJ23 and order of this CourtinCrl.P.No.88T4of2o2Smainlycontendingthatbail jurisprudence is an essential element and facet of a civilized criminal justice system, as it guarantees the right to a fair trial for the accused and it secures the libert5r of the accused and that the accused is presumed to be an innocent unless proven guilty'

10. Per contra, Iearned counsel for the 2"d respondent, while filing counter affidavits in both these criminal petitions' has vehemently opposed granting bail to the petitioners mainly contending that the role of the petitioners is very crucial in hatching and executing the plan to kidnap the de-facto complainant and her h":911d and murder her t 12018)7 Su)re.Qe Court Cases 192 ' t.io.nr".ie-'162bzo arising out of sLP (crl.) No'110212024 8 husband and that the police with great efforts, could able to arrest the petitioners from the residence of accused No.l8, the trial is going on in a swift pace and cross-examination of PW39/ LVi/45 is done by the learned counsel for the accused and trial Court is proceeding to record the evidence of remaining witnesses ald hence, granting bail to the petitioners at this stage may hinder ttre trial and tampering of witnesses cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that since the act committed by the accused is heinous in nature and it shook tl're collective conscience of the society, enlarging the petitioners on bail will not only pose threat to the de-facto complainant but also to the witnesses who are crucial to establish the prosecution case. Granting bail to the other accused cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioners on bail since individual overt acts committed by the respective accused have to be assessed while considering their applications for bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases between lleeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3, Shri Mahadeva Meena Vs. Praveen Kumar Rathore (SLP (Crl.l No.4O72 of 20.211, Rohit Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another4 and Deepak Yadav Vs. State of UPs held that while considering the bail application the Court must focus on the allegations levelled against the accused, nature of offence committed, severity of punishment, danger of accused absconding or fleeing in the event of 'zorcltslsceazf o 2ozl tt'tsc 042 t zozzlsl scc sss 9 granting bail and the reasonable apprehension of influencing the witnesses. l,earned counsel for the 2'd respondent relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of UP through CBI Vs' Amarmani Tripathi6 and contended that the mere fact of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future cannot entitle the accused for bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there is an apprehension of tampering with the witnesses by the accused in the event of their release on bail' I 1 . Learned assistant public prosecutor while reiterating the prosecution case and apprehension of petitioners hampering with the evidence and hindrance to the trial in the event of enlarging them on bail, has opposed the present criminal petitions'

12. This Court perused the entire material available on record and heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel' Proposition of law is well settled that while deciding the application for bail' the court has to iook into the crucial aspects like allegations levelled against the accused, nature of offence committed' severity of punishment' danger of accused absconding or fleeing in the event of granting bail and the apprehension of influencing or threatening the witnesses' A perusal of record goes to show that the trial in the present case has been commenced and examination of LW45/PW39 has been completed and 6{to€5)8 Supreme court cases 21 10 out of the total 76 listed witnesses, except the oflicial witnesses other witnesses were already examined. It is a,lso to be noted that the petitioners are languishing in jail since 26.09.2020 and on the other hand, it is also to be taken into consideration that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave and heinous in nature.

13. No doubt the allegations against the petitioners are serious in terms of the alleged abduction and death of the deceased, that by itself should not prevent this Court from enlarging. the accused on bail especially when they are already behind bars for about four years and above. I do not see any good reason to continue the judicial custody of the petitioners that too after completion of investigation and submission of charge sheet and commencement and continuation of the trial and as of now examination of all the witnesses has been completed except the offrcial witnesses. It is the fundamental right of every person in judicial custody to have fair trial by assisting their respective counsel. In the given circumstances it is to be seen whether continuation of the petitioners in custody is required more particularly when some of the accused are already enlarged on bail and most of the witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. So far as the contention of the 2'd respondent/de-facto complainant that in the event of granting bail to the petitioners, they may threaten or frighten the witnesses and caupe I l I 11 hindrance to the smooth conduction of trial is concerned, the same can be prevented by imposing stringent conditions on the petitioners'

14. In view of this, I am of the view that petitioners are entitled to bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to allay the apprehension of the respondents. It is not necessary to canvass and go into the details of various contentions advanced by the parties since the same are the subject matter of trial and hence, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on the same. 15 In the result, these two criminal petitions are allowed with the following conditions : \ (0 The petitioners/Al and A6 shall be enlarged on bail in connection with sc No.5 0f 2024 0n the hle of the learned IX Additional District and Sessions. Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar on their executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs'1,OO,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)withtwosuretiesforalike-sumeachtothesatisfactionofthetrial Court (ii)ThepetitionersshallattendbeforethetrialCourtoneachand everyadjournmentandshallnotseekdispensationintheirattendance. (iii) The petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. I ( I I I 12 (iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the trial Court for speedy conclusion of trial and they shall not induce, frighten or threaten the witnesses or any person connected with the case in any manner and shall not influence any of the witnesses directly or indirectly from deposing before the trial Court or to make any deposition detrimental to the interest of justice. (v) The petitioners shall deposit their passports, if possessed, into the trial Court. Any deviation of above conditions entails the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners.

16. Miscellaneous applications if any pending, stand closed. I I I To, \ SD/- L LAKSHMI BABU, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. / ,TRUE COPY// \ ) ECTION OFFICER

1. The lX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar

2. The Xll Additional lvletropolitan Magistrate,Kukatpally, cyberabad at

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Prashanth Nagar ( By Speed Post)

4. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli, Cyberabad 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. OndCC to Sri S Goutham, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies ADK *_- HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 I I ( q J o I 1P.F- S i.+ Iti l l .,,i ,$?I I i, z COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.11887 AND 11910 of 2024 ALLOWING THE BOTH CRLPS \") \