State Of Telangana vs Md.Hamed Khan

The present application is filed by the State seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the 1st respondent/accused by order dt.17.02.2022 in Crl.MP.No.58/2022 by the Family Court-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy.

The case was initially heard by Honourable Smt.Justice Lalitha Kanneganti and by a detailed order dt.18.02.2022 suspended the bail granted to the respondent/accused and since then the petitioner is in jail. When the case come up for hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor Sri Pratap Reddy argued that the respondent is a habitual offender in several crimes over a period from 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 363 which includes offence of Murder, attempt to murder, kidnap, Arms Act which are serious offences and if the bail granted to the respondent is not cancelled, it would cause great injustice to the present prosecution of murder.

From the earlier instances, it is apparent that the 1st respondent’s acquittal in all the cases was on account of the 1st respondent threatening the witnesses. The said fact is evident from the Judgments of the earlier cases wherein all the witnesses turned hostile. In the present case also there is a solitary eye-witness to the murder committed by the 1st respondent and in the event of the 1st respondent being released on bail, in all probability, all the witnesses would be threatened and turn hostile to the case of prosecution.

The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the Judgments reported in the cases of a) Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan AIR1987 SC 1613; b) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and others AIR 2004 SC 1866; c) Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT) of Delhi and others (2018) 12 SCC 129; d) Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and others (2016) 9 SCC 443; e) Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2021 4 SCC 781; f) Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh and decided on 24.08.2021 vide Crl.Appeal no.883 of 2021 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No.3739 of 2021).

In Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 11 had laid down certain guidelines, which are as follows:

“(i) Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence.

(ii) nature and gravity of accusations.

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction.

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted bail.

(v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused.

(vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witness being influenced; and

ix) danger of justice being thwarted by granted by bail

In para 12 had held that no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognize the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such Accused is released on bail.”

He also relied upon the latest full bench judgment (consisting three judges) reported in the case of Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu 2022 Livelaw (SC) 376 wherein their Lordships have relied upon the judgment in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee ((2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein it is held that it is equally incumbent upon the Court while exercising jurisdiction to grant bail and consider an application for bail on the basis of its nature, gravity, accusation, severity, punishment and the danger of the accused fleeing from justice.

The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that interim suspension of bail granted on 18.02.2022 should be made absolute. Further, as seen from the order of the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail it is a cryptic order without giving any valid reason for grant of bail in such heinous crime of murder. Further, when the prosecution has filed counter giving specific reasons for refusal of bail to the first respondent, the sessions judge erred in not considering the said contentions of the prosecution and committed error in granting bail to the first respondent.

The counsel for the first respondent/accused submits that the law would take its own course and there is no necessity of detaining the accused. As seen from the record in all the earlier six cases, the first respondent/accused was acquitted which in fact point towards his false implication. When the competent courts have given a verdict to the appellant not being guilty, the same would be in accordance with law. The said cases where acquittals were recorded cannot be made basis to cancel the present bail granted to the first respondent. He further states that the State has deliberately filed the present application seeking cancellation of bail after this Court has set aside the preventive detention order on 02.02.2022. Even in the present case, the accused would be only a suspect of committing the alleged act till the finding of the court that he is guilty of the offences alleged by the prosecution. It is the bounden duty of the police and court to conduct a trial in accordance with law and for the said reason, the liberty of this respondent cannot be curtailed. He further stated that the mother of the respondent is on death bed and the present petition needs to be dismissed so that the respondent would be by the side of his ailing mother, who is on her death bed.

It is not in dispute that the first respondent/accused was involved in ten other cases and further when he was granted bail pursuant to his conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC in Cr.No.111/2014, the 1st respondent/accused misused his liberty of bail and got involved in the present offence, which is under Section 302 of IPC. The manner in which the 1st respondent/accused committed the earlier crimes would indicate that he is a threat to the society and would in all probability hamper the process of trial in the present case under Section 302 of IPC.

As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C should be a reasonable discretion to be exercised in judicious manner and not bereft of any reasons. If the court fails in its duty the bail granted in such manner has to be cancelled.

The learned Sessions Judge, in the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 has granted bail to the first respondent on the ground that he was in judicial custody from 09.08.2021 and the charge sheet was already filed and numbered as PRC. The learned Sessions Judge, in fact failed to take note of the antecedents wherein the 1st respondent/accused was involved in ten other crimes over a period from October, 2010. Further the prosecution also filed a detailed counter narrating that the 1st respondent/accused was a rowdy sheeter and in a pre-planned manner with the help of A2 and A3 killed the deceased. The 1st respondent/accused had in fact chopped the deceased with an axe and it was a brutal murder which scared the residents and in fact in the back ground of the 1st respondent/accused being involved in several cases. The apprehension that the 1st respondent/accused would influence the sole eye witness in this case is not unfounded.

As seen from the record, the bail granted to the 1st respondent/accused is not based on relevant consideration and by way of cryptic order ignoring the background and antecedents of the 1st respondent/accused. When the 1st respondent/accused is a habitual offender involved in 11 cases and the hostility in six of the cases leading to his acquittal is definitely a valid ground for setting aside the bail granted to the 1st respondent/accused.

For the aforesaid reasons and also in view of the order dated 18.02.2022 suspending the bail granted to the 1st respondent/accused, the prayer seeking cancellation of bail of the 1st respondent/accused is allowed. Accordingly, the order vide Crl.M.P.No.58/2022 dated 17.02.2022 is set aside. Since the 1st respondent/accused is already in jail by virtue of order dated 18.02.2022 suspending the bail order, the 1st respondent/accused shall continue to be in jail.

Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/accused submits that the mother of the 1st respondent/accused is on death bed. However, in the aforesaid circumstances, the 1st respondent/accused is at liberty to move for interim bail.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, shall stand closed.