Alexy Joy·
CriminalJudgment AnalysisUncategorized
···133 views

Gangi Reddy .V. Central Bureau Of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2023)

About the Author

The Author of this article is V.M. Manukrishna who is a 2 nd Semester, 5 year LLB student of Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram

Facts of the Case:
On Wednesday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) announced that it had submitted a charge sheet against four suspects in the purported murder of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, a former minister and the uncle of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. In the Kadapa region of Andhra Pradesh, the agency submitted the chargesheet in the judicial magistrate’s court at Pulivendula. Gajjala Umashankar Reddy, T. Gangi Reddy, Yadati Sunil Yadav, and Shaik Dasthagiri are the four defendants named in the chargesheet 1 .The CBI began an investigation into the case on July 9, 2020, in line with the orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The case had originally been filed at Pulivendula Police Station. The two accused were detained in August and September 2021 during the course of the inquiry, and they are currently being held in judicial detention. The two others are out on bond. The agency stated that additional inquiry into the matter is ongoing. On March 15, 2019, Vivekananda Reddy, the sibling of the late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy Reddy, was discovered deceased in his Pulivendula home 2 . The 68-year-old former minister and Legislator was home alone when unidentified assailants reportedly broke in and murdered him. He was assassinated just hours before the YSR Congress Party’s Kadapa electoral campaign was set to begin. Despite the investigation being carried out by three Special Investigation Teams (SITs) of the state police, the riddle remained unsolved. The CBI started looking into the matter in July of last year. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had requested an investigation by the federal body four months prior.

Pathway of Submissions of Complainant and Course of Procedures:
Suneetha Reddy, the wife of Vivekananda Reddy, and other petitioners asked the judge for guidance.Suneetha Reddy criticised the CBI’s investigation’s postponement in April of this year. She went to the CBI offices in Delhi, claiming it was a political assassination, to find out why the investigation was taking so long. She emphasised that she has misgivings about some of her kin. Despite the fact that her father’s homicide occurred more than two years ago, according to the woman, no one has yet been apprehended. Since resuming its investigation in June, the CBI has detained four suspects. The agency submitted the interim charge document in order to meet the timeline given that the first suspect in the case was apprehended roughly 90 days prior. On October 26, 2021, the C.B.I. submitted the original chargesheet, naming A1 through A4 3 . Following this, the CBI applied to the Special Court under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to have the bail given to the defendants revoked. This motion was denied by the learned Trial Court by order dated November 30, 2021. It is argued that the addendum to Section 167(2) serves to emphasise the necessity of a prompt inquiry within the allotted time frame and to guard against complacency in that regard. Consequently, bail will favour the person on bail under Section 167(2) CrPC o the grounds of Section 437(5) and Section 439(2) CrPC if the indictment includes a particular cause or reasons and the indictment reveals the conduct of a crime not susceptible to bail. What are known as exceptional reasons for bail exemption are in addition to the recognised circumstances for bail exclusion allowed under Section 167(2) CrPC. In this case, the decisions in Raghubir Singh and Ors v. Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481, and Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481, were considered 4 .The trial surrounding the unexplained demise of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy was permitted to be transferred from the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) Special Court in Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court in Hyderabad by the bench of M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh JJ. He was the uncle of Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, the current Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the opposing leader at the time of the incident in 2019, and the brother of Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, the former Chief Minister of the unified State of Andhra Pradesh.

Possible Issue that was tackled by the Honourable Court through the Submission of Respondent
While opposing the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it was contended that there is no real-life threat to the accused and witnesses and the transfer of the trial will have a direct bearing on the right of defence of the accused. It was further submitted that there are more than 250 witnesses yet to be examined, therefore the transfer of the trial to another State will cause undue hardship to them. The issue here was mainly whether the apprehension of the Petitioner not getting a fair and impartial trial and inquiry is reasonable or not?

Analytical Summary conducted by the Honourable Court
The Court cited Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 6 SCC 204, in which it wasdecided that even under Section 407 CrPC and Section 406 CrPC, any party may request the relocation of a case to another part of the nation if they believe doing so will facilitate having a fair trial. Also, the fear of not receiving an unbiased and equitable investigation or trial must be legitimate and not irrational, based on conjectures and assumptions. The Court continued by emphasising the Principles of Administration of Justice, adding that a fair and free trial is a requirement of Article 21 and that justice ought to be not only done but also perceived to be done 5 .Regarding further investigative process on a greater conspiracy as well as evidence ruination, the Court believed that the concern about not receiving a fair and objective trial and investigation was plausible and not predicated on speculations and presumptions after taking into account the factual information and the situation at hand. Hence, advised that the current case be submitted to the CBI Special Court in Hyderabad.

Related