Ardham Ranjith Reddy v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYOERABAD MONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILL,AKUR SUMALATHA ./ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6482 0F 2022 Between:
'1. Ardham Ranjith Reddy, S/o. Late Muralidhar Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Private emdoyee, R/o. H. No.547/1, beside Geelha Theatre, Chanda Nagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Ardham Rakesh Reddy, S/o. Late Muralidhar Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Private employee, Rt/o. H, No. 5-4211, beside Geetha Theatre, Chanda Nagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...PET|TIONER/ACCUSEO NO. 9 & 10 AND The State of Telangana, Represented by public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.g & 10 on bait in SC No. S ol 2o21on the file of the Honble lX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (Crime No. 592 of 2020 of p.S. Gachibowli, Cyberabad). This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri pASHAM KRISHNA REDDY ,Advocate for the petitioner and the Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the sole Respondent.
The Court made the following: ORDER
\ HONBLE DR, JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6482 of 2022 ORDER:
Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as rvell as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
2.
Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail, who are arrayed as accused Nos.9 and 1O in S.C.No.S of 2021 that is pending on the file of the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 3.
l,earned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.9 and lO have not committed any offences whatsoever and the allegations levelled against them are false and therefore, they are entitled to bail. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 25.9.2O2O and four successive bail applications were dismissed till now and in the light of changed circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to
t)r CSl.. J CrlPNo.6482 of 2O22 bail. learned counsel further states that earlier bail applications were dismissed on different grounds like investigation was pending, the case was not committed, the prime witnesses were not examined' etc. But, as of now, since no such grounds are prevailing, the petitioners have to be enlarged on bail' 4.
Vehemently opposing the said submission' the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that he filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners who are the prime accused are not entitled to bail' Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submitted that. there is active collusion and conspiracv between the petitioners and other accused and they abducted the husband of the defacto complainant and killed him mercilessly and this is one of the cases of honour killing and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bail.
5.
The crux of the case as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet is that P'W- 1 is the daughter of accused Nos'2 and 3' She fell in love nith the deceased-Hemanth Kumar (hereinafter
I Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.6482 of 2O22 be referred to as "the deceased" for brevity). As the parents of P.W- 1, i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3, refused for getting her married to the deceased, p.W- 1 and the deceased left their respective houses and got married. They got their marriage registered too. Subsequently, they took a house on rent and started residing together. Accused No.2 who is the father oi p.W-l lodged a complaint to Police regarding missing of his daughter. Subsequently, Police summoned p.W-1 and the deceased and later, informed accused No.2 that both of them got married. Accused Nos.l to 3, the petitioners herein and others tried to convince p.W-1 to return to house on the ground that the deceased I belongs to a different caste. But P.W- I refused. On that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 conspired and contacted others seeking their help to kill the deceased. As per their pre-arranged plan, the deceased and p.W-1 were taken in a car and later, the deceased lr.as killed by strangulating him r,r,ith a rope.
6.
In the light of rhe afore-mentioned allegations, a case was registered and was investigated into and subsequently, Police laid charge sheet contending that
Dr.CSl,. J CrU'No.6482 of 2022 accLrsed Nos. 1 to 18 committed offences punishable under Sections 120-8, 3O2, 364, 379, 448, 449, 341, 342 352, 353 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whe:n the learned counsel for the petitioners cont-ended that the petitioners are in judicial custody since long time and as of now, there is no requirement for their further detention, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that a Special Court is constituted to try the case and there is mandate that the trial has to be completed within six months, but the accused took four months to cross-examine P.\['- I . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also stated that crucia-l witnesses to the case are L.Ws. 1 to 10 ald in case, the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may threaten those witnesses and the proceedings may be stalled. He further stated that L.Ws.2 and 3 were examined in chief.
7 .
A perusal of the record discloses that L.Ws. I to l0 are the prime witnesses. Further, the allegations ar€ grave in nature. Therefore, the apprehension of thr: learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appears justifiable.
Dr.CSL. J CrlPNo.6482 o[2022 8.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioners I I i I contended that the petitioners are innocent, a perusal of the charge sheet reveals that from the cell phone with phone No.98489 11269, which was seized from petitioner No.l /accused No.9, it was found that he contacted accused No.1 over phone 86 times, accused No.2 67 times, accused No.3 12 times, accused No.B 6 times, accused No.10 413 times, accused No.12 170 times, accused No.13 132 times, accused No.l4 24 times, accused No.15 167 times, accused No.17 28 times and accused No. 18 18 times. It is a,lso narrated that the said calls were made between 10.6.2020 and 24.9.2O2O. Likewise, it is also mentioned that from the cell phone of petitioner No.2/accused No. 1O with phone No.9949O77269, it was found that he contacted accused No.1 29 times, accused No.2 104 times, accused No.3 68 times, accused No.S 64 times, i accused No.9 413 times, accused No. L2 252 times, accused No. 13 I 11 times, accused No.14 35 times, accused No.15 15 times, accused No.17 219 times and accused No. 18 14 times between 1O.6.2O20 and 24.9.2020.
I)r.CSl,.,I CrlPNo.6482 of 2022 9.
Having regard to aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioners as of now canr-rot be honoured. However, this Court is in full agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not desirable to keep the petitioners in judicial custody on the ground that the trial is taking long time to get completed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cal be enlarged on bail only on completion of recording of evirlence of the prime witnesses i.e., L.Ws. 1 to lO. I 0. As per the submission of both parties, the evi<lence of P.W- 1 is completed in toto and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is completed in chief and the case is coming up for their cross-examination. Thr:refore, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with t he lollowing directions:- (llPetitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.9 and l0 shall be enlarged on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court of
Dr.CSt,. J CrlltNo.64 82 of 2022 IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar as soon as the recording of evidence of the witnesses upto L.W. 1O is completed.
(2) That does not mean that L.Ws.4 to 1O shall be examined by the prosecuting agency. The prosecuting agency would ahr/ays be at liberty either to give up their evidence or to examine those witnesses.
(3) However, as soon as their requirement before the Court for attendance to give evidence is completed, the petitioners shall be set at liberty on their executing the required bond narrated supra.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/-N.RAJAGOPAL ASSISTAM &EG.ISTRAR ,/ //TRUE COPY// SECYI6N LI;il\{ To, lX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at B.Nagar The Station House Officer, P.S., Gachibowli, Cyberabad
3. One CC to SRl. PASHAM KRISHNA REDOY Advocate IOPUC]
4. Two CCs to the ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]
5. Two CD Copies.
.\:-
{ HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812022 ?3 SEP ?$11
ORDER
CRLP.No.64l]2 ol 2022 OISPOSING CIF TH CRIMINAL PETITION q