SUNEETHA NARREDDYversusY S AVINASH REDDY & ANR

568                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 568                [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A                         SUNEETHA NARREDDY
                                        v.
                        Y S AVINASH REDDY & ANR.
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 1251 of 2023)
B                               APRIL 24, 2023
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
               PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
             Investigation – Victim-deceased was found murdered – CBI
      submitted a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet naming
C
      five persons – CBI issued summons to the first respondent – First
      respondent appeared before the CBI on several occasions – First
      respondent filed writ petition – On 18.04.2023, the High Court (i)
      granted an ad interim stay of arrest; and (ii) directed that the
      examination before the CBI in the course of the investigation shall
D     be “in printed/written form” during the course of which a
      questionnaire may also be handed over to the first respondent – On
      appeal, held: The abovementioned order would stultify the
      investigation – There is absolutely no warrant for the High Court
      to direct that the investigation of a person who has been interrogated
      as a suspect in the conspiracy should be in the printed or written
E
      form – Similarly, it is wholly inappropriate for the High Court to
      observe that the questionnaire may also be handed over to the
      respondent – Such orders of the High Court are liable to gravely
      prejudice the course of investigation – Impugned order of the High
      Court set aside.
F
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      1251 of 2023.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2023 of the High Court
      for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 3798 of 2023.
G          Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jesal Wahi, Anmol Kheta, Kumar
      Kashyap, Advs. for the Appellant.
          Tushar Mehta, SG, Mukul Rohatgi, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advs.,
      Mukund P. Unny, Siddhartha Sarma, Advs. for the Respondents.

H
                                       568
     SUNEETHA NARREDDY v. Y S AVINASH REDDY & ANR.                            569


        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            A
        DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
        1. Leave granted.
       2. The appeal arises from an order dated 18 April 2023 of a single
Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition       B
No 3798 of 2023. The High Court was moved with an application for the
grant of Anticipatory bail to the first respondent under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 19731 in connection with RC-04(S)/2020/
SC-III/ND.
       3. The deceased, YS Vivekananda Reddy, was found to have               C
been murdered at his house at Pulivendula, Kadapa District of Andhra
Pradesh on the night intervening 14/15 March 2019. The deceased was
the brother of Shri YS Rajasekhara Reddy, former Chief Minister of the
undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.
       4. A complaint was lodged by MV Krishna Reddy at 8.00 am on            D
15 March 2019 at Pulivendula Urban Police Station which resulted in
the registration of Crime No 84/2019.
      5. A Special Investigating Team was constituted by the Director
General of Police headed by the Additional Director General of Police
(CID). The Special Investigating Team was reconstituted on 13 June
                                                                              E
2019 and 10 October 2019.
       6. The appellant is the daughter of the deceased. The appellant
instituted a petition before the High Court seeking a transfer of the
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation2.
      7. On 11 March 2020, the High Court directed that the CBI shall         F
conduct further investigation in CR No 84/2019 of the Pulivendula Urban
Police Station.
       8. The CBI registered the crime as RC-04(S)/2020/SC-III/ND
on 9 July 2020.
      9. On 21 October 2021, the CBI submitted a charge sheet before          G
the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pulivendula naming four
persons, namely, Yerra Gangi Reddy (Al), Yadati Sunil Yadav (A2), Gajjala
Uma Shankar Reddy (A3) and Shaik Dastagiri (A4) for commission of
1
    “CrPC”
2
    “CBI”                                                                     H
570            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
      Code 1860. The charge sheet submitted by the CBI named among others,
      the first respondent, his father and two other persons as suspects in the
      conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased.
           10. On 17 November 2021, the CBI arrested D. Siva Shankar
B     Reddy.
            12. On 31 January 2022, the CBI filed a supplementary charge
      sheet naming D. Siva Shankar Reddy as A5.
             13. Apprehending that there was a serious danger to the life of
      the witnesses and that false complaints were being filed against the
C     officers of the CBI, the appellant and her mother moved this Court seeking
      directions for the transfer of the trial from the CBI Special Court Kadapa,
      Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court in Hyderabad or Delhi and
      for a direction to the CBI to conclude the investigation in a time bound
      manner.
D            14. By an order dated 29 November 2022, this Court has
      transferred the trial from Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad.
            15. In the meantime, the CBI issued summons to the first
      respondent to appear before it on 23 January 2023. A fresh notice was
      issued to the first respondent to appear on 16 February 2023 and again
E     on 6 March 2023. The first respondent has appeared before the CBI on
      several occasions.
             16. The first respondent instituted a Writ Petition before the High
      Court. On 10 March 2023, the High Court directed the CBI to produce
      the entire record before it and directed it not to take any coercive steps
F     against the first respondent, while ordering him to appear before the
      Investigating Officer on 14 March 2023.
              17. On 13 March 2023, the High Court reserved orders. On 17
      March 2023, the High Court disposed of IA Nos 1 and 2 in the Writ
      Petition holding that it was not inclined to stay the examination of the
G     first respondent under Section 161 of the CrPC. While vacating the
      interim order, the High Court, however, directed that the first respondent
      shall be examined within the sight of his advocate.
            18. On 14 April 2023, the CBI arrested Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy.
            19. On 15 April 2023, the father of the first respondent was arrested
H     by the CBI.
   SUNEETHA NARREDDY v. Y S AVINASH REDDY & ANR.                               571
       [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

       20. On 16 April 2023, the CBI served a notice under Section 160         A
of the CrPC on the first respondent to appear in its office on 17 April
2023.
        21. The first respondent moved an application for anticipatory
bail.
       22. The High Court by its order dated 18 April, 2023 directed that      B
the first respondent shall attend the office of the CBI between 19 and 25
April 2023; the questions and answers shall be in the printed/written
form and a questionnaire may also be handed over to the first respondent.
In the meantime, the High Court has directed that the first respondent
shall not be arrested and directed the proceedings to stand over to 25         C
April, 2023.
        23. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 21 April 2023. The
first respondent accepted notice through learned counsel and has filed a
counter affidavit in these proceedings.
       24. We have heard Mr Sidharth Luthra, senior counsel appearing          D
on behalf of the appellant, Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Ranjit Kumar,
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr Tushar
Mehta, Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the second
respondent.
       25. During the course of the proceedings, the attention of the          E
Court has been drawn to the affidavit which was filed by the CBI in the
writ proceedings. Paragraphs 9, 16 and 45 of the affidavit filed by CBI
are extracted below :-
        “9    That during the course of further investigation role of a
              close associate of Petitioner/Y.S. Avinash Reddy, namely         F
              D. Siva Shankar Reddy (A-5 and then General Secretary
              YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) was found in participation of
              conspiracy for murder of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy and also
              in the destruction of evidence at the Scene of Crime. Further,
              it was also found that accused T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra
                                                                               G
              Gangi Reddy (A-1) also had actively participated in the
              destruction of evidence at the Scene of Crime besides act
              of criminal intimidation to one of the eye-witnesses namely
              B. Ranganna (Watchman of the house of deceased).
              Therefore, a Supplementary Charge-sheet dated 31.01.2022
              u/s 173(8) Cr. PC was filed before Ld. Court of Judicial         H
572     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           Magistrate - First Class, Pulivendula against accused D.
            Siva Shankar Reddy (A-5) u/s 201 & 120-B r/w 302 & 201
            IPC. Further, accused T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy
            (A-1) was also charge sheeted for the offences u/s 201,
            506 & 120-B r/w 201 IPC in continuation to the first charge-
            sheet filed on 26.10.2021 by CBI.
B
               xxx                        xxx                        xxx
      16.   That during further investigation role of Petitioner/ Y.S.
            Avinash Reddy and others have emerged. Consequent to
            Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner/Y.S. Avinash Reddy, in
C           compliance of the order dated 10.3.2023 of this Hon’ble
            Court, the evidences in respect of the role of the Petitioner
            in murder of the deceased Shri YS Vivekananda Reddy
            has been submitted before this Hon’ble Court in sealed cover
            as the further investigation in the case is still going on.

D           xxx                           xxx                        xxx
      45.   In reply to Para 14, it is submitted that both acts involved in
            the conspiracy i.e., the act of execution of murder and the
            acts of destruction of evidence at SoC were integral part
            of larger conspiracy, wherein none other than the petitioner
E           Y S Avinash Reddy was a beneficiary, in which the execution
            of murder was carried out by the accused namely Yerra
            Gangi Reddy (A-1), Yadati Sunil Yadav (A-2), Gajjala Uma
            Sankar Reddy (A-3), and Shaikh Dasthagiri(A-4), whereas
            the second part of the act i.e destruction of evidence at the
            Scene of Crime was carried out at the behest of petitioner
F           Y S Avinash Reddy, Y S Bhaskar Reddy, D. Siva Shankar
            Reddy (A-5) and Yerra Gangi Reddy (A-1) and in their
            presence and on their instructions, which is evident from
            the statements of several eye witnesses. Therefore,
            averments made in this Para attributing motive on the part
G           of Smt Suneetha Reddy and her husband Shri N.Raja
            Shekar Reddy behind the murder of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy
            are baseless. Though during investigation, it has revealed
            that Shri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy had married Smt. Shaikh
            Shameem during the year 2010 and maintaining relationship
            with her, that about this marriage family members of Y.S.
H           Vivekananda Reddy, especially Shri N. Siva Prakash Reddy,
  SUNEETHA NARREDDY v. Y S AVINASH REDDY & ANR.                                573
      [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

              were not happy, however, during investigation, no evidence       A
              has emerged for any of them (i.e. Smt. Suneetha Reddy,
              Shri N. Raja Shekar Reddy or Shri N. Siva Prakash Reddy)
              being involved in the conspiracy behind murder of Shri Y.S.
              Vivekananda Reddy.”
      26. At this stage, it is also material to extract from the order dated   B
18 April 2023, in the remand proceedings before the Principal Special
Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, pertaining to the co-accused :
      “(v)    The petitioner/complainant further averred that during
              investigation Shaik Dasthagiri (A-4, turned approver)
              revealed that after the murder in the intervening night of       C
              14-15.03.2019, Yerra Gangi Reddy called Shaik Dasthagiri
              and other two co-accused on 15.03.2019 at about 5.20 AM,
              and told them not to worry. He also told them that he had
              talked with Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy and others, they will handle
              everything and they will receive money later. The
              subsequent act of floating of story of death of the deceased     D
              due to heart attack and destruction of scene of crime in the
              presence of Y.S. Avinash Reddy, Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy, D.
              Siva Shankar Reddy, Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy and Y.
              Gangi Reddy corroborates the disclosure of statement of
              Shaik Dasthagiri.                                                E
                 xxx                       xxx                        xxx
      (vii)   The petitioner/complainant further averred that Shaik
              Dasthagiri (A-4, turned approver) further revealed that on
              the basis of assurance extended by Yerra Gangi Reddy/A-
              1 to the assailants that they need not to worry about the        F
              police as all proofs of murder have been destroyed and
              everything has been cleaned, the assailants did not reveal
              the truth when local police called them for enquiry. Further,
              in the early morning of 15.03.2019, accused Gajjala Uday
              Kumar Reddy, D. Siva Shankar Reddy/A-5 and others were           G
              already present at the house of Sri YS Bhaskar Reddy/
              Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy and prepared for immediately
              proceeding to the house of YS Vivekananda Reddy to
              manage the scene of crime as conveyed by T. Gangi Reddy
              @ Y. Gangi Reddy/A-1 to three other co-assailants including
                                                                               H
574      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            Sheikh Dasthagiri (A-4 turned approver) at 5.20 AM at his
             residence.
      (viii) The petitioner/complainant further averred that Sri N. Siva
             Prakash Reddy called from his mobile phone to Sri Y.S.
             Avinash Reddy at his mobile phone at 06:26:15 AM and
B            informed him about the death of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda
             Reddy. Thereafter, Sri Y.S. Avinash Reddy accompanied
             by D. Siva Shankar Reddy/A-5, Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy,
             E.C. Surendra Reddy, Prashant Reddy, Raghava Reddy and
             Ramana Reddy (both Pas of Y.S. Avinash Reddy)
             immediately reached in three to four vehicles at the house
C            of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy. The forensic analysis of
             Google takeout of accused Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy
             carried out by CFSL, New Delhi reveals that location of
             mobile phone of Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy was inside the
             house of Sri Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy at 06:25:25 AM and just
D            two minutes after at 06:27:28 AM, location of his mobile
             phone was found outside the house of Sri Y.S. vivekananda
             Reddy and thereafter, he was found present inside the house
             of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy at 6:29 to 6:31 AM.
      (ix)   The petitioner/complainant further averred that Y.S. Avinash
E            Reddy and other persons accompanied with him after
             entering in the house of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy had
             seen the blood present in the bedroom and dead body lying
             in pool of blood in the bathroom with visible gruesome
             injuries on the head. Thereafter, Sri Y.S. Avinash Reddy
             using mobile on one number (9000006243) of his PA,
F            Raghava Reddy made a call to Sri J. Shankaraiah,
             (92121100544), then Circle Inspector, Pullivendula and
             informed him that Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy had died
             due to heart attach and heavy blood vomiting, which is
             present at bedroom and bathroom. He further told Sri J.
G            Shjankaraiah to send three to four constables for bandobast.
             It is evident that Sri Y.S. Avinash Reddy had called police
             only after seeing the dead body of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda
             Reddy and discussing the matter with D. Siva Shankar
             Reddy. It indicates that the fake story of heart attack and
             blood vomiting was floated in a pre-meditated manner to
H            give it a colour of natural death as a part of conspiracy.”
  SUNEETHA NARREDDY v. Y S AVINASH REDDY & ANR.                                 575
      [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

       27. In this backdrop, the issue which arises for consideration is as     A
to whether the High Court was justified in (i) granting an ad interim stay
of arrest; and (ii) directing that the examination before the CBI in the
course of the investigation shall be “in printed/written form” during the
course of which a questionnaire may also be handed over to the first
respondent.
                                                                                B
       28. It may be noted at this stage, that the High Court was still to
hear the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. When the impugned
order was passed on 18 April 2023, the High Court was moved with an
application for ad interim stay of arrest pending the disposal of the
application for anticipatory bail. Even at that stage, the High Court has
proceeded to observe that :                                                     C

      “15. The CBI, during the course of investigation has found that
           there are multiple motives for the murder of the deceased.
           One of the motives as attributed to this petitioner is regarding
           political aspirations and that the deceased may come in his
           way. The Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is         D
           not in dispute that the deceased canvassed for the petitioner
           and this is the second time that the petitioner was elected.
           However, according to the charge sheet, though there were
           separate motives and grudges, the accused had come
           together to do away with the deceased.                               E
      16.    The case is still under investigation and multiple motives
             are suggested. The motive attributed to this petitioner is on
             the basis of the confession of A4 who according to him
             was informed by Al that big persons are involved and named
             this petitioner along with A7 and two others. There is no          F
             other evidence apart from what was available in the year
             2021, however this petitioner was not arrested or examined
             until January this year. It is not the case that this petitioner
             was absconding. The CBI has chosen not to arrest this
             petitioner along with A7 but issued a 160 CRPC notice.
             Since there were allegations of bias, fabrication of evidence      G
             and false implication, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed
             change of the investigating officer according to the Counsel
             for the petitioner. The deadline imposed by the Hon’ble
             Supreme Court for concluding investigation is 30th April,
             2023.”                                                             H
576                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            29. The above finding of the High Court at this stage is premature,
      particularly in the context of what has been stated by the CBI on affidavit.
      Having due regard to what has been stated by the CBI in its affidavit,
      we are clearly of the view that the High Court has misapplied itself and
      passed an extraordinary order in terms of the directions which have
      been issued. The High Court has observed that the first respondent may
B
      not appear for investigation apprehending arrest and seek alternative
      remedies. While directing that the first respondent should be available
      for questioning “along with A6 and A7 who are given police custody, and
      the High Court has directed that the first respondent shall attend the
      office of the CBI between 19 and 25 April 2023 and that (i) the question
C     and answer shall be in printed/written form; and (ii) the questionnaire
      may also be handed over to the respondent.
             30. An order of this nature would stultify the investigation. There
      is absolutely no warrant for the High Court to direct that the investigation
      of a person who has been interrogated as a suspect in the conspiracy
D     should be in the printed or written form. Similarly, it is wholly inappropriate
      for the High Court to observe that the questionnaire may also be handed
      over to the respondent. Such orders of the High Court are liable to gravely
      prejudice the course of investigation. Particularly at this stage when the
      CBI is to fully investigate the crime and the role of several accused who
      do not form a part of the charge sheet as submitted, we are of the view
E     that the directions issued by the High Court were unwarranted.
            31. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
      order of the High Court dated 18 April 2023.
             32. Since the application for anticipatory bail before the High Court
F     is pending consideration, we clarify that the observations in this order
      shall not come in the way of the High Court evaluating the application.
              33. Having regard to the developments which have intervened,
      we are of the considered view that the time for the completion of
      investigation by the CBI should be extended and we accordingly extend
G     it until 30 June 2023.


      Ankit Gyan                                                      Appeal allowed.




H