GALI JANARDHAN REDDY versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 10-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
GALI JANARDHAN REDDY
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Misc. Application No. 528 of 2020)
In
(SLP (Criminal) No. 7053 of 2013)
OCTOBER 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
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
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,
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
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
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
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 656
656
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra
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
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.
3632 of 2013.
With
Diary No. 11949 of 2021.
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.
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
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-
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 –
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
GALI JANARDHAN REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
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 C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.