THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.18 of 2013
(Dated: 04-02-2013)
Between:
P.Yadagiri Rao S/o Bala Krishnaiah
....Petitioner/A-8
A n d
State of Andhra Pradesh, through
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad.
...Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.18 of 2013
ORDER:
The petitioner is A-8 in C.C.No.12 of 2012 on the file of the Prl. Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He is being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 7,8,9, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 34, 109 & 219 IPC. This is the second bail application. The earlier bail application being Criminal Petition No.7709 of 2012 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 19-11-2012.
2. The petitioner is accused of laying conspiracy to bribe the Presiding Officer of the C.B.I.Court, Hyderabad so as to secure bail to Gali Janardhan Reddy in C.C.No.1 of 2012.
The deal is stated to be about Rs.20 Crores. He is stated to have received the amount on various dates from 11-5-2012 to 18-5-2012.
Out of the said amount, he paid Rs.3 Crores to A-7-T.V.Chalapathi Rao through his Driver Ravi and Rs.1 Crore to A-5-T.Aditya, Junior Advocate and retained the balance amount with him.
In a way, the accusation against him is that he acted as a conduit for transfer of money from A-2, A-3 and A-4 to A-7, who in turn, paid part of the money to A-1-Talluri Pattabhi Rama Rao, the then I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.
After due investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, CIU, Hyderabad in the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The learned Prl. Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.12 of 2012.
The petitioner approached the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad for grant of bail by moving Crl.M.P.Nos.556 of 2012 and 628 of 2012 and the said petitions ended in dismissal on 6.9.2012 and 3.11.2012 respectively. Subsequently, he made an attempt to get bail by moving Criminal Petition No.7909 of 2012 in this Court and the said petition came to be dismissed on 19-11-2012.
Hence the petitioner renewed his request for grant of bail by moving this instant application.
3. Heard Sri S.Sharat Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB Cases appearing for the respondent.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner could not bring it to the notice of the Court on earlier occasion certain material facts. Had complete facts have been brought to the notice of this Court; the earlier bail application ought not to have been dismissed.
The petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the other accused, who have been on bail as on this day and therefore, on principle of parity, the petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail.
The rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner came to be closed in the year 2004. Even opening of the rowdy-sheet was at the instance of two police officers, namely, N.Bhujanga Rao and N.Hari Krishna who are hostile to the petitioner. N.Bhujanga Rao while working as Station House Officer, Nacharam P.S., interfered with the civil litigation and thereupon, the petitioner filed writ petition and therefore, N.Bhujanga Rao nourished grudge against him. N.Hari Krishna who also worked as Station House Officer, Nacharam P.S. demanded a bribe of Rs.3,00,000/- and thereupon, the petitioner reported the matter to the concerned officers who laid a trap and therefore, the said Hari Krishna nourished grudge against him. These two police officers are responsible for foisting various cases against the petitioner.
According to the learned counsel, the father of the petitioner, namely, P.Bala Krishna filed Writ Petition No.27464 of 2011 when the neighbour namely, Mrs.P.Subhashini made constructions flouting the building permission. Therefore, the said Mrs.P.Subhashini and other neighbours developed grudge against the petitioner and they resorted to file a false complaint when the petitioner came out on interim bail. Therefore, registration of a case in Crime No.203 of 2012 against the petitioner needs no consideration. Even one of the persons, namely, M.Anjaneyulu, who lodged complaint against the petitioner is facing prosecution under the provisions of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at the instance of Rakesh who is working with the petitioner. When the petitioner refused the request of the said Anjaneyulu to bail out from the case registered against him, he extended his helping hand to ACB by filing a complaint which formed basis for registering a case in Crime No.303 of 2012 of Nacharam P.S. It is further contended by the learned counsel that after dismissal of the earlier bail application, ACB filed supplementary charge sheet in which case, it is to be construed that investigation in all aspects has been completed and therefore, further detention of the petitioner is not warranted. It has been urged by the learned counsel that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in incarceration further. Even otherwise, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.6806 & 6855 of 2012 observed that this case remains nothing more than a corruption case in which illegal gratification passed to A.1 for rendering an official favour and none of the offences alleged against the accused are punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Since the learned Single Judge of this Court proceeded to grant bail to A-1-T.Pattabhirama Rao, A-2-Gali Somasekhar Reddy with the above observation, the same observation holds good in respect of this petitioner also on the principle of parity in which case, the petitioner deserves for grant of bail.
Learned counsel refers para (4) of the order passed in Criminal Petition Nos.6806 & 6855 of 2012 which reads as hereunder:-
“ In any event, even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are accepted for the sake of argument, this case remains nothing more than a corruption case in which illegal gratification passed to A.1 for rendering an official favour. None of the offences alleged against the accused are punishable with death of imprisonment for life. In corruption cases, usually cases are booked by arranging trap to the public servant by employing decoy witnesses. The difference in this case is that the case was booked on source information coupled with recovery of part of the alleged illegal gratification amount. No public exchequer amount is involved in this particular corruption case. No doubt, this case evoked sensation in view of the fact that A.1 happened to be a Judge holding important focal post of Special Judge for C.B.I Cases and since A.2 and A.4 happened to be Members of Legislative Assembly from another State and since the beneficiary happened to be Gali Janardhan Reddy who is stated to be a mining baron and who is also a sitting Member of Legislative Council in Karnataka State and former Minister in the Government of State of Karnataka. Since charge sheet is filed after completing investigation and after getting statements of some important witnesses recorded by Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that the question of the accused tampering with evidence in this case may not arise. Further, since both the petitioners have occupied responsible positions in public life, the question of their fleeing away from process of Court also may not arise. In the circumstances, this Court finds that this is a fit case for granting bail to the petitioners at this stage.”
5. By referring the above passage in the common order dated 25.9.2012, learned counsel contends that in case this Court is not able to agree with the above observation, the matter needs to be referred to the Division Bench. Learned counsel would further contend that refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments:-
(8) Masroor v. State of U.P.[8]
6. I do not wish to burden the order by detailing the proposition of law laid down in all the above-referred cases. It is suffice to refer paragraphs (20) and (21) of the judgment in Chander @ Chandra’s case (1 supra) and they are thus:-
“20. Coming to the second question as to what should be done by a Judge when he is confronted with an order of bail which has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principles, we are of the opinion that he has no authority to cancel the same as one Judge of the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the orders passed by another Judge. If he considers it in the interest of justice, he may, after expressing his views, refer the matter to the same Judge who had granted bail for appropriate action. However, it appear that the bail order has been passed on the basis of wrong or incorrect documents or wrong facts he may initiate action for cancellation of bail.
21. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows:
1.If the order granting bail to an accuse is not supported by reasons, the same cannot form the basis for granting bail to a co-accused on the ground of parity.
2.A judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even where the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains reasons, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle and ignores to take into consideration the relevant factors essential for granting bail.
3. A judge hearing bail application of one accused cannot cancel the bail granted to a co-accused by another Judge on the ground that the same had been granted in flagrant violation of well settled principles. If he considers it necessary in the interest of justice, he may, after expressing his views, refer the matter to the Judge who had granted bail, for appropriate orders.
4. If it appears that a bail order has been passed in favour of an accused on the basis of wrong or incorrect documents it is open to any Judge to initiate action for cancellation of bail.”
7. In Nanha’s case (2 supra), though the Bench comprising of two Judges have authored two separate judgments, ultimately, the opinion expressed by them is that if on examination of a given case it transpires that the case of the applicant before court is identical, similar to the accused, on facts and circumstances, who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should also be released on bail.
8. Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner cannot plead parity with the other accused since he is a rowdy-sheeter and a person of potentiality in involving offences. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner played a vital role in bribing the Presiding Officer of the C.B.I Court and he is instrumental for transfer of money from giver to the taker and huge cash came to be seized from his house. He would further submit that the petitioner’s driver, namely, Ravi through whom cash has been sent to A-7 is yet to be traced as on this day and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of threat to the witnesses and his interfering with the administration of justice and therefore, he does not deserve for grant of bail. Learned Standing Counsel took me to the proceedings dated 18-8-2010 emanating from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Sub-Division, Cyberabad permitting the Inspector of Police, Nacharam P.S to reopen the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
9. In response; it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is the two police officers, namely, N.Bhujanga Rao and N.Hari Krishna who are behind the initiation of various crimes against the petitioner and therefore, re-opening of rowdy sheet needs no consideration. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner appeared before Sri R.M.Khan, Additional S.P., C.B.I., Hyderabad on 27-5-2012 and his statement came to be recorded. But the ACB did not choose to apprehend him on 27-5-2012 and indeed it is the ACB Police who advised the petitioner to move out from Hyderabad and ultimately, apprehended the petitioner on 30-6-2012 at Ooty and brought him to Hyderabad and produced before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad as if the petitioner has been arrested on 02-7-2012 at Aaramghar Cross Road.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The question is whether the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the other accused who have been admitted to bail. The role of the petitioner could be known from the charge sheet filed in Cr.No.8/ACB-CIU-HYD/2012. The relevant portion of the charge sheet needs to be noted and it is thus:-
“ Thus investigation discloses that Sri G.Somashekar Reddy (A-2), Sri G.Dasharatha Rami Reddy (A-3) & Sri T.S.Suresh Babu (A-4) entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sri T.Pattabhi Rama Rao, the then 1st Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. (A.O-1) through his son Sri T.Ravi Chandra @ T.Ravi (A-6) with the mediation of Sri T.V.Chalapathi Rao (A-7) retired Judge, Sri T.Aditya (A-5), Advocate and Sri P.Yadagiri Rao (A-8) for granting of bail to Sri Gali Janardhana Reddy (Accsed-2) in the case in Rc.17(A)/2009 of CBI, Hyd. In pursuance of said conspiracy in abuse of his official position Sri T.Pattabi Rama Rao(A.O-1) granted bail to Sri Gali Janardhana Reddy on 11-5-2012 for obtaining illegal gratification. In consideration of the same Sri G.Somashekar Reddy (A-2), Sri G.Dasharatha Rami Reddy (A-3) made part payment of Rs.4.5 crores to Sri P.Yadagiri Rao (A-8) on 11-5-2012 at 9.30 PM at Dasapalla Hotel, Hyderabad. Further A-2 and A-3 handed over Rs.5 crores to A-8- Sri P.Yadagiri Rao between 12-5-2012 and 18-5-2012 in instalments.
Out of the said amount A-8 Sri P.Yadagiri Rao handed over Rs.3 crores to A-7-Sri T.V.Chalapathi Rao through his driver in the night of 11-5-2012 and also handed over Rs.1 crore to Sri T.Aditya (A-5) on 18-5-2012 and retained the remaining amount of Rs.5.5 crores for himself.”
11. It is also trite to note the relevant portion of the confessional statement of the petitioner recorded in the presence of the mediators, namely, Dr.Ghanshyam, Gundada Raja Sekhar, K.Srinivas and Sri T.Raghupathy Goud and it is thus:-
“ Further from the amount I received from Sri Somashekara Reddy and Sri Dasaratha Ram Reddy towards my share amount I made the following payments.
1. I paid Rs.36,00,000/- to Sri Nakka Saibaba S/o Venkayya, A/65 yrs, Retd. Govt. Servant, R/o Flat No.105, Praveen Plaza, Malkajgiri, Hyd.
2. I paid Rs.6,54,000/- and got released my gold ornaments from M/s. Sri Bhavani Jewellers, Nacharam.
3. On 16-5-2012 I purchased a Maruthi Swift Car for Rs.8,10,000/- in the name of B.Nagaraju, brother of my driver B.Ravi from RKS Motors Pvt. Ltd. Saboo Towers, SD Road, Secunderabad.
4. I also gave Rs.20,00,000/- to Sri Ravinder Reddy towards sale consideration of his house located opposite to my residence at Nacharam.
5. I paid Rs.10 lakhs to Sri Sharath Kumar, Advocate to look after my legal problems and to file petitions with false allegations against police officials and other investigating agencies. I also informed him about the deal struck in connection with granting of bail to Sri Gali Janardhan Reddy and got some share of money out of this deal upon which Sri Sharath Kumar advised me to avoid arrest by ACB by going away out of the State and in the meanwhile he would try to get anticipatory bail for me. In case if he fails to get the anticipatory bail, he would surrender me before the Court. On his advise I have moved to Tirupati, Chennai, Mumbai, Tiruvantipuram, Madurai, Kanchipuram, Kanyakumari, Cochin, Mysore, Bangalore etc. and today i.e 02.07.2012 I came to Hyderabad by bus and got down at Aramghar Cross Road in order to go to my residence and waiting for my vehicle. In the meantime at about 7.00 A.M I was caught by ACB Officials. All these days I was in touch with my Advocate Sri Sharath Kumar.
6. I gave Rs.12 lakhs to Sri Venkatesh (brother-in-law of Eshwar Rao) through my brother Sri Eshwar Rao as father of Sri Venkatesh is suffering with serious ailment”.
12. The investigation revealed that the petitioner acted as a bridge between the givers and takers of bribe amount.
A-2 to A-4 are the givers and A-6 and A-7 are the takers of the bribe amount. It is the petitioner who informed A-2 to A-4 that he could manage the Presiding Officer of the C.B.I Court and secure bail to Gali Janardhan Reddy.
Had the petitioner not involved in this case, the chariot of corruption with crores of rupees must have halted at the end of the givers only.
As on this day, the rowdy-sheet opened against the petitioner is in force. These two factors disentitle him to claim parity with the other accused who have been admitted to bail.
Therefore, I am of the view that there are no changed circumstances that enure to the benefit of the petitioner to renew his request for grant of bail after dismissal of the earlier bail application.
13. However, it is brought to my notice that further proceedings in C.C.No.12 of 2012 are being postponed from time to time because of the pendency of the discharge application moved by other accused. As could be seen from the proceeding sheet in C.C.No.12 of 2012, the case is being posted from time to time because of the pendency of Crl.M.P.No.770 of 2012 filed by other accused seeking their discharge. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to dispose of the discharge application being Crl.M.P.No.770 of 2012 if there is no other impediment, within two weeks from today. In the event of the case being adjourned from time to time without there being no worth mentioning progress, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his request for grant of bail after three weeks.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
Dt.04-02-2013
RAR
