Telangana High Court: G. Sri Devi, J., while addressing a bail application filed in a case of ‘Honour Killing’ enumerated the factors that are significant while granting bail.
Instant criminal petition was filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to release the petitioners on bail.
Prosecution’s Case
In the Charge-Sheet it was stated that the deceased – Chinta Yoga Hemanth Kumar fell in love with the de facto complainant and decided to marry her. Both of them belonged to different castes due to which their parents were not happy.
Parents of the de facto complainant, with relatives, help tried to convince the de facto complainant and the deceased and forcibly took away the de facto complainant’s phone. But the love affair continued, and marriage was solemnized.
It was stated that the parents of the de facto complainant hatched a plan to do away with the life of the deceased and murdered the deceased in connivance with the other accused of marrying their daughter, which was an inter-caste marriage.
Important factors while granting bail
While granting bai1, it is necessary for the Court to consider the following factors among other circumstances:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge;
It was noted that the present was the third bail application by the petitioners as the previous ones were rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
In the Supreme Court decision of State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8 SCC 380, it was observed that:
“…principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.”
Bench in lights of the facts and circumstances along with evidence placed on record, noted that the modus operandi adopted by the petitioners and other accused in the crime would also prima facie disclose that they committed the offences to do away the life of the deceased in order to separate the de factor complainant from him.
High Court also added that the Assistant Public Prosecutor’s apprehension that it was difficult to secure the presence of the petitioners, if they were released on bail could not be ruled out.
Hence, since no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of earlier bail applications was found, present bail application was rejected. [Ardham Ranjit Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 320, decided on 08-03-2021]
LEGAL DEFINITION IN INDIA
Devika Sharma has written a world-class article that is respected around the world by civilised countries. Tragically India gives employment to IAS and PCS as the justices who are unskilled to interpret the legal definition, these unqualified justices persecute citizens who appear before them for the protection of their life and the property. I provide a plain case with evidence that India does not appoint IAS and PCS as justices to interpret the legal definition. I am a UP NRI residing in Canada since 1975. I instructed advocates to commence my parental property partition suits in 2017. 2018 I examined the suits which were legally flawed because the pedigree was missing, I withdrew with the order of the SDM and filled new suits with a prayer that then I was over 70 years of age, residing in Canada with my Japanese wife and three children, I prayed for the expeditious partition due to extraordinary circumstances, SDM was gracious promising to complete the partition in six month. On 25, April 2018, the SDM served notices to my brother and co-shareholders to attend the hearing in May 2018. The relative advocates of my brother and co-shareholders counselled them to murder me to steal my shares. The shareholders in the evening of April 25 came out with guns, threatened to murder me and withdraw the partition suits, four accused were charged under section 506 and 352 IPC, they were counselled to never attend any hearings and obey any order of the SDM, the advocates assured co-shareholders to delay the partition until my death or murder. In May 2018, a preliminary decree was passed, Kurras was passed. In July 2018 a stay order was passed ordering co-shareholders to maintain the status quo until the partition was completed, they disobeyed the status quo order. They made a fraudulent objection to delay the partition which was dismissed with cost, they disobeyed several status quo orders and the cost orders. The SDM fixed November 12, 2018, to pass the final decree, ordered me to be present for the possession of my land. On November 12, my brother gave a false affidavit to SDM that I sold my shares in India prior to moving to Canada in 1975. I challenged the forged deed. My brother promised SDM to bring the original deed which he never produced. I gave a false affidavit of my brother to IG for the investigation.SDM stayed the partition until the investigation was completed. He told in the open court that all the condition of the partition were met. My brother co-shareholders delay the partition and the final date was fixed to pass the final decree and give the possession on January 22, 2019. On 22 January SDM told me that DIV.COMM.wants to review the files, he has issued ex parte order, under section 210 of UP Revenue Code 2006, I told SDM that order was obtained arbitrarily contrary to article 14 of Indian Constitution, and contrary to guidelines for obtaining ex parte order, also contrary to the principles of audi alteram partem.SDM said, “I am not a lawyer”. My brother took the files to get reviewed the unpaid cost of Rs.250.oo imposed on him on October 30, 2018. India not to appoint IAS, and PCS as justices to interpret the legal definition.
RAMESH MISHRA
CANADA