Gali Janardhan Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gali Janardhan Reddy  Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 528 OF 2020

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 7053 OF 2013

Gali Janardhan Reddy       ..Appellant (S)

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh       ..Respondent (S)

WITH 

DIARY NO. 11949 OF 2021

Gali Janardhan Reddy       ..Appellant (S)

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh       ..Respondent (S)

O R D E R

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Present application has been preferred by the applicant

2

–   original   accused   for   an   appropriate   order   of

modification   of   condition   No.(c)  of   the   order   dated

28.01.2015   passed   by   this   Court   in   Special   Leave

Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013 to the extent permitting the

applicant to enter, stay and function in the Districts of

Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and

Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh. 

2. The applicant herein is the accused in RC 17(A)/2009­

CBI­HYD dated 07.12.2009 as amended on 05.09.2011,

for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409,

468, 411, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 read

with   Rules   4(1),   4(1)(A)   and   23   of   the   Mines   and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. That,

the applicant – accused was arrested by the CBI on

05.09.2011. Prior to coming to this Court, the applicant

– accused approached the learned trial Court as well as

the High Court for the grant of regular bail on number

of occasions. The said request of the applicant – accused

was rejected inter alia on the ground that grant of bail to

the   applicant   –   accused   may   impede   fair   and

uninfluenced investigation. That, when the applicant –

accused lastly approached the High Court in the year

2013 by way of filing Criminal Petition No.3632/2013,

vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 , considering

the   gravity   of   the   allegations   leveled   against   the

3

applicant – accused, his influential status and the CBI

indicated a reasonable apprehension that the accused is

likely to influence the investigation if enlarged on bail,

the   High   Court   rejected   the   bail   application.   The

applicant approached this Court by way of Special Leave

Petition   (Cri.)   No.7053/2013.   By   an   order   dated

20.01.2015,   the   order   which   is   sought   to   be   now

modified, this Court had released the applicant on bail

subject to following conditions:

“a) He shall surrender his passport, if not

already surrendered, to the learned Principal

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. If he

has   already   surrendered   his   passport   before

the learned Principal Special Judge, that fact

should also be supported by an affidavit;

b) He shall not leave the country without

the   leave   of   the   learned   Principal   Special

Judge;

c) He shall not visit the Districts of Bellary

in   Karnataka   and   District   of   Ananthapuram

and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh;

d) He shall cooperate with the Court in the

smooth   process   of   trial   and   its   early

4

conclusion;

e) He shall not directly or indirectly make

any   inducement,   threat   or   promise   to   any

person acquainted with the facts of the case so

as   to   dissuade   such   person   from   disclosing

such facts to the Court or to tamper with the

evidence;

f) He   shall   remain   present   before   the

learned Principal Special Judge on the dates

fixed for hearing of the case without fail. If he

requires to remain absent, he shall take prior

permission   of   the   learned   Principal   Special

Judge   and   in   case   of   unavoidable

circumstances for remaining absent, he shall

immediately appropriately intimate the learned

Principal   Special   Judge   and   also   to   the

Superintendent, CBI and request that he may

be   permitted   to   be   present   through   the

counsel.

g) Insofar   as   the   surety   amount   is

concerned, the petitioner shall execute a bond

with   two   solvent   sureties,   in   a   sum   of

Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten lakhs only) each.

5

h) If, for any reason the petitioner fails to

comply   with   all   the   conditions   as   stipulated

above,   the   respondents   are   at   liberty   to

approach this Court for modification / recall of

the order granting bail to the petitioner.

10. The grant of bail to the petitioner shall be

subject to any other cases that are pending against

the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is yet to be

granted bail by the appropriate court(s).” 

3. Present application has been preferred by the applicant

–   accused   to   modify   and/or   delete   condition   No.(c)

reproduced   hereinabove   and   thereby   permit   him   to

enter, stay and function in the Districts of Ballery in

Karnataka   and   District   of   Ananthapuram   and

Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.

4. At this stage it is required to be noted that in the year

2016   a   similar   request   was   made   to   delete   the

conditions that were imposed while granting bail. By an

order dated 01.07.2016, this Court dismissed the said

application, however, directed the trial Court to make an

endeavour   to   complete   the   trial   expeditiously.   That,

thereafter,   one   another   application   was   made   being

Criminal   Miscellaneous   Petition   No.6534/2017   for

modification   of   the   condition   imposed   while   granting

6

bail which came to be rejected by this Court vide order

dated   09.05.2017.   That,   thereafter,   the   present

application   has   been   preferred.   By   an   order   dated

19.08.2021, this Court while adjourning the application

to   third   week   of   November,   2021,   has   modified   and

substituted the condition No.(c) as under: 

“(c)As and when the petitioner proposes to

visit   any   of   the   following   districts,   being

District   Ballery   in   Karnataka   and

Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra

Pradesh, he shall give prior intimation to the

Superintendent   of   Police   of   the   concerned

district of the date when he proposes to go to

the   district   and   further   he   shall   also   give

prior   intimation   to   the   concerned

Superintendent of Police of the date of his

departure from the said district.”

Condition   No.(h)   imposed   in   the   order

dated 20.01.2015 is reiterated.”

This Court has also observed that the trial Court

shall   make   endeavour   to   proceed   with   the   trial

expeditiously.

5. Thereafter, the present application is notified before the

Bench for further hearing. 

7

6. Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has

appeared on behalf of the applicant – accused and Ms.

Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of

the respondent – CBI. 

7. Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   Senior   Advocate

appearing for the applicant has vehemently submitted

that after the initial order was passed by this Court in

the year 2015 granting bail on the conditions mentioned

in the said order, the applicant has visited Bellary on 8

to 9 occasions pursuant to the permissions granted by

this Court and during the said visits, the applicant has

never violated any of the conditions imposed by this

Court in the bail order. It is submitted that in past more

than 6 to 7 years since the bail has been granted, the

applicant   has   not   violated   any   of   the   conditions   as

imposed. It is submitted that the trial has not proceeded

further for which the applicant is not at all responsible.

It   is   submitted   that   the   delay   in   the   trial   is   not

attributable to the applicant. It is, therefore, requested

to modify the condition No.(c) as mentioned in the order

dated  20.01.2015  and   permit  the   applicant   to   enter,

stay   and   function   in   the   Districts   of   Bellary   in

Karnataka   and   District   of   Ananthapuram   and

Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh. 

7.1 In the alternative it is prayed to continue modification of

condition No.(c)  as per the order passed by this Court

8

on 19.08.2021. 

8. Present   application   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.

Madhavi Divan, learned ASG. It is vehemently submitted

that CBI has strong apprehension that if the condition

No.(c)  so   imposed   by   this   Court   in   the   order   dated

20.01.2015   is   modified   and/or   substituted,   the

applicant   may   influence   the   witnesses   which   may

ultimately affect the trial and the judicial process. It is

submitted that in past, attempts were made to influence

even the Judicial Officers which is already on record. It

is   submitted   that   despite   the   orders   passed   by   this

Court, the trial is not proceeding because of the conduct

on the part of the accused persons by filing one after

another discharge applications. 

9. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has submitted that

therefore   in   case  condition   No.(c)  of   the  order   dated

20.01.2015 is modified, there would be serious threat to

the witnesses because of the power and influence that

the applicant is having. It is submitted that still as and

when there is any emergency the applicant may still

move this Court for appropriate permission which may

be considered on case to case basis and therefore, to

that extent, the interest of the applicant can be taken

care of. 

9

10. In   response,   Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   Senior

Advocate in the alternative has submitted that as the

daughter of the applicant has recently delivered a child

at Bengaluru and now she is at Bellary, the applicant

may be permitted to visit and stay at Bellary atleast for

a period of four weeks to be with his daughter. 

11. On the aforesaid alternative prayer, Ms. Madhavi Divan,

learned ASG has pointed out that in fact the daughter of

the  applicant had delivered the child at Bengaluru and

she was never at Bellary. It is submitted that only after

present   application   was   heard   by   this   Court   on

29.09.2022, in the evening the daughter of the applicant

is shifted to Bellary. Therefore, it is prayed to consider

the aforesaid conduct on the part of the applicant. 

12. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior

Advocate appearing for the applicant and Ms. Madhavi

Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the CBI at

length. We have considered the submissions made on

behalf of the respective parties. We have considered the

material on record. 

13. The applicant is facing the trial for very serious offences

punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468,

411,   427   and   447   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860,

section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 read

with   Rules   4(1),   4(1)(A)   and   23   of   the   Mines   and

10

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The

investigation was carried out by the CBI. Most of the

witnesses are from Bellary in Karnataka and District of

Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra   Pradesh.

Taking into consideration the apprehension on the part

of the CBI that if the applicant is allowed to enter, stay

and function in the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and

District   of   Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra

Pradesh and that there are all possibilities of applicant

influencing and/or tampering with the witnesses, this

Court   while   granting   bail   imposed   condition   No.(c)

restraining the applicant from entering into the Districts

of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram

and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra   Pradesh.   In   past,   the

apprehensions   are   proved   to   be   true   and   even   the

judicial officers were influenced / tried to be influenced.

There is a serious apprehension on the part of the CBI /

investigating agency that if condition No.(c)  is relaxed

and/or   modified   and/or   substituted,   there   would   be

threat   to   the   witnesses   because   of   the   power   and

influence   that   the   applicant   is   having.   It   is   very

unfortunate that even after a period of 11 years of filing

the FIR and despite the observations made by this Court

directing   the   trial   to   be   expedited,   the   trial   has   not

begun. From the material on record, it appears that the

trial has not begun on the ground that the accused / coaccused   are   filing   the   applications   for   discharge   one

11

after another, due to which the trial has not begun. In a

case like this, it is always in the larger interest that the

trial is concluded at the earliest. Early conclusion of the

trial would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery

system. The trial must come to its logical end at the

earliest. Any attempt on the part of the accused to delay

the   trial   of  serious   offences   is   to   be   dealt   with   iron

hands.   More   the   delay,   more   the   possibilities   of

influencing   the   witnesses.   Therefore,   we   are   of   the

opinion that as despite the observations made by this

Court directing to expedite the trial, as the trial has not

begun, now, a direction is to be issued to the trial Court

to begin the trial on day to day basis and once the trial

begins the applicant – accused may be restrained from

entering into the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and

District   of   Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra

Pradesh looking to the strong apprehension on the part

of the CBI recorded hereinabove. 

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

we   dispose   of   /   dismiss   the   present   application   for

modification / substitution of condition No.(c)  in the

order dated 28.01.2015 passed by this Court in Special

Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 7053/2013. However, we direct

as under: 

(1) Learned   trial   Court   /   Special   Court   is   hereby

directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis

12

from   09.11.2022.   We   direct   the   learned   Special

Court to conclude the trial within a period of six

months from 09.11.2022 without fail;

(2) That   the   prosecution   may   examine   first,   the

witnesses from Bellary in Karnataka and District of

Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh

as   far   as   possible.   It   will   be   the   duty   of   the

investigating   agency   to   keep   all   the   witnesses

present   for   the   purpose   of   their   depositions   /

examination in chief;

(3) All the accused are hereby directed to cooperate

the learned Special Court in conclusion of the trial

at   the   earliest   and   within   the   period   stipulated

hereinabove and any attempt on the part of the

accused   to   delay   the   trial   shall   be   viewed   very

seriously;

(4) As it is reported that the daughter of the applicant

has delivered a child recently and now she is at

Bellary,   the   applicant   is   permitted   to   stay   at

Bellary upto 06.11.2022. It is specifically directed

that the applicant shall move out of Bellary and

remain out of Bellary in Karnataka and Districts of

Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh

from 07.11.2022 till the trial is concluded.

13

15. With the aforesaid directions, present application shall

stand   disposed   of.   Registry   is   directed   to   send   the

present order to the learned Special Court forthwith. 

…………………………………J.

    (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

NEW DELHI, 

OCTOBER 10, 2022