GALI JANARDHAN REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

656                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   15 S.C.R. 656                 [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A                         GALI JANARDHAN REDDY
                                          v.
                     THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                        (Misc. Application No. 528 of 2020)
B                                        In
                        (SLP (Criminal) No. 7053 of 2013)
                               OCTOBER 10, 2022
               [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
C
             Bail – Applicant sought modification of condition of bail –
      Directions issued – Applicant is accused for the offences u/s 120(B),
      420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427 and 447 of IPC, s.2 of the Indian
      Forest Act, 1927, r.21 r/w. Rules 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines
      and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Appellant
D     was arrested by the CBI on 05.09.2011 – Bail was granted by
      Supreme Court on 20.01.2015, subject to some conditions – One of
      them was a condition (c) which read as “he shall not visit the Districts
      of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and
      Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh” – Thereafter, present application
      was filed for the modification of the condition (c) – By interim order,
E     Supreme Court modified the said condition to the extent that the
      applicant shall give prior intimation to the SP of his visit – Held:
      The applicant is facing the trial for very serious offences – In the
      past the apprehensions of influencing the witness are proved to be
      true and even the judicial officers were influenced/tried to be
F     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 –
      Even after a period of 11 years of filing the FIR and despite the
      observations made by Supreme Court directing the trial to be
G     expedited, the trial has not begun – Early conclusion of the trial
      would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery system – Now,
      direction, inter-alia, 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
H
                                         656
   GALI JANARDHAN REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA                              657
                    PRADESH

Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra               A
Pradesh – Application disposed of.
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous
Application No. 528 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.
7053 of 2013.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2013 of the High Court        B
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.
3632 of 2013.
      With
      Diary No. 11949 of 2021.                                              C
    Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mayank Jain, Parmatma Singh,
Madhur Jain, Advs. for the Petitioner.
     Ms. Madhavi Goradia Divan, ASG, Sachin Sharma, Shantanu
Sharma, TS Sabarish, Shuvodeep Roy, Sudarshan K., Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.                                           D
      The Order of the Court was passed by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Present application has been preferred by the applicant –
original accused for an appropriate order of modification of condition      E
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-             F
CBI-HYD 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 –    G
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     H
658             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     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 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
B
      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,
C               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;
D
                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 conclusion;
E               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
F               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
G
                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.
H
   GALI JANARDHAN REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA                                 659
              PRADESH [M. R. SHAH, J.]

          h) If, for any reason the petitioner fails to comply with all the    A
          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    B
      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              C
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             D
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 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       E
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        F
      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         G
      reiterated.”
            This Court has also observed that the trial Court shall make
      endeavour to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

                                                                               H
660             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A            5. Thereafter, the present application is notified before the Bench
      for further hearing.
            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.
B              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
C     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.
D     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
E     condition No.(c) as per the order passed by this Court 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
F     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
G     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
H
   GALI JANARDHAN REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA                                 661
              PRADESH [M. R. SHAH, J.]

appropriate permission which may be considered on case to case basis           A
and therefore, to that extent, the interest of the applicant can be taken
care of.
       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         B
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       C
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           D
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         E
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 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            F
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        G
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
                                                                               H
662                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      that the accused/co-accused are filing the applications for discharge
      one 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.
C     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
D
      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
E     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
F                    conduct the trial on day to day basis 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
G                    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
H                    Special Court in conclusion of the trial at the earliest and
    GALI JANARDHAN REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA                                   663
               PRADESH [M. R. SHAH, J.]

               within the period stipulated hereinabove and any attempt on        A
               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      B
               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.
      15. With the aforesaid directions, present application shall stand          C
disposed of. Registry is directed to send the present order to the learned
Special Court forthwith.

Ankit Gyan                                             Application disposed of.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)
                                                                                  D




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H