Minpur Bixapathi Yadav Buchi Yadav … vs The State Of Telangana on 24 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Minpur Bixapathi Yadav Buchi Yadav … vs The State Of Telangana on 24 January, 2025

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

         CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.11887 & 11910 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER :

These criminal petitions are filed under Sections 480 and 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to grant bail to the

petitioners/A1 & A6 respectively in SC No.5 of 2021 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 120B(1),

302, 364, 379, 448, 449, 341, 342, 352, 323 and 506 read with Section

34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. In both these matters, this Court heard Sri VR Avula, learned

senior counsel representing Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioners, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

for the State/1st respondent and Sri S.Goutham, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent/de-facto complainant.

3. Basing on the complaint dated 24.09.2020, lodged by the de-facto

complainant/the 2nd respondent herein, the police of Gachibowli

registered a crime in FIR No.592 of 2020 for the offences under Sections

365, 452, 509, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that the

accused have illegally trespassed into the house of the 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/A1 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 in-laws 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

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 with other accused have forcibly abducted

the de-facto complainant and her husband in the car of A.Rakesh

Reddy/A10 and when the victims jumped from the car to escape, the

petitioners along with accused Nos.5 and 7 with the assistance of

accused Nos.8, 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

29.10.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2020 on the file of the learned XII AMM,

Kukatpally A1 and A2 were subjected to police custody for the period

from 30.09.2020 to 05.10.2020.

5. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that on 01.10.2020 accused

Nos.1 and 2 confessed that the deceased and the de-facto complainant

fell in love and married on 10.06.2020 in Santhoshimatha Temple,

BHEL Road and got their marriage registered at Qutbullapur SRO

Office, having dislike in the said inter-caste marriage, accused Nos.2

and 3, who are the parents of de-facto complainant, got registered a

crime in FIR No.436 of 2020 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

not heed to the words of accused Nos.1 to 3 and transferred the
4

properties purchased in her name in favour of accused Nos.3, 8 and 10.

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.1

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.1 as that of the person appearing in the said

CC TV footage. The call data records and location of cell phones of the

accused during the time of commission of offence proved the

conversation among the accused and their involvement in the offence.

LW10, eyewitness, identified accused Nos.5, 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 hold the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 5 strangulated

the deceased with jute rope, purchased by accused No.1. 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 the statements of the

witnesses and laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offences

under Section 120-B(1), 302, 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 wife 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 jail, his entire 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.11910 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 the present

case.

6

8. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners/A1

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 official witnesses, recording of evidence of

witnesses, numbering to 53, is completed, and hence, tampering of

evidence by the petitioners cannot be a ground to confine the

petitioners for indefinite incarceration on the edifice of weak and

inconsistent case of prosecution. It is further contended that the

petitioners are law abiding citizens without any criminal antecedents

and that accused Nos.2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 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 convicting 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.11578 of 2023 were dismissed. In-

spite of specific directions to conclude the trial as expeditiously as

possible, the trial is getting delayed and in the event of the petitioners
7

getting acquittal, the life spent by the petitioner in jail cannot be

compensated. Continuation of the petitioners in jail for indefinite

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

others 1, Arvind Kejriwal Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation 2, order

of High Court of Calcutta in CRR No.3593 of 2023 and order of this

Court in Crl.P.No.8874 of 2023 mainly contending that bail

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 liberty of the accused and that the accused is

presumed to be an innocent unless proven guilty.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd 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 husband and murder her

1
(2018)7 Supreme Court Cases 192
2
Crl.A.No.3816/2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.11023/2024
8

husband and that the police with great efforts, could able to arrest the

petitioners from the residence of accused No.18, the trial is going on in

a swift pace and cross-examination of PW39/LW45 is done by the

learned counsel for the accused and trial Court is proceeding to record

the evidence of remaining witnesses and hence, granting bail to the

petitioners at this stage may hinder the 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 the

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 Neeru Yadav Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh 3, Shri Mahadeva Meena Vs. Praveen Kumar Rathore

(SLP (Crl.) No.4072 of 2021), Rohit Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan

and another 4 and Deepak Yadav Vs. State of UP 5 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

3
2016(15)SCC 422
4
2023 INSC 642
5
2022(8) SCC 559
9

granting bail and the reasonable apprehension of influencing the

witnesses. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied upon the

decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of UP through CBI Vs.

Amarmani Tripathi 6 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.

11. 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 look 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
(2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 21
10

out of the total 76 listed witnesses, except the official witnesses other

witnesses were already examined. It is also 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

official 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 2nd

respondent/de-facto complainant that in the event of granting bail to

the petitioners, they may threaten or frighten the witnesses and cause
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 :

(i) The petitioners/A1 and A6 shall be enlarged on bail in connection

with SC No.5 of 2024 on the file 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh

only) with two sureties for a like-sum each to the satisfaction of the trial

Court.

(ii) The petitioners shall attend before the trial Court on each and

every adjournment and shall not seek dispensation in their attendance.

(iii) The petitioners shall not leave the country without prior

permission of the Court.

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.

_________________
EV Venugopal, J
Dated.24.01.2025.

Abb.