Vivekananda Reddy Murder Case: Telangana High Court Declines Bail To Father, Aide Of Kadapa MP Avinash Reddy

The Telangana High Court has rejected the bail applications of Y.S Bhaskar Reddy and Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy, the father and close aide of the Kadapa MP, respectively, in the Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy Murder case.

"there is prima facie, and reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners herein/A.6 [Gajjala] and A.7 [Bhaskar] have committed the offence which is serious and grave in nature...A.7 is father of A.8 [sitting Member of Parliament from Kadapa Parliament Constituency] and he is close relative of the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh...They are highly influential persons. All the witnesses are from the State of Andhra Pradesh and thus there is every possibility of the petitioners herein threatening/influencing the witnesses in which event, it may not be possible to the trial Court to conduct trial in a fair and transparent manner."

The common order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in the ongoing case pertaining to the murder of former member of the legislative Assembly of erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh and also a former Member of Parliament in March of 2019.

It held that although bail is a discretionary power of the Court, the same should be exercised in a judicial manner.

Justice Lakshman observed that it is not for the High Court to consider in-depth the case of the accused while granting bail, but that instead the Court should contemplate whether a prima facie case could be made out against the accused.

The Bench considered the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee and Deepak Yadav Vs. State of UP and held that, prima facie, there was a case made out against the accused and that the accused are also in a position to influence witnesses.

"It is apt to note that, prima facie, there is specific allegation against the petitioners and other accused that the P.W.9, Sri J.Shankaraiah, the then Circle Inspector has mentioned the role of the petitioners and others in his statement given to CBI under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He also expressed his willingness to give his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.... Though he agreed to give statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. subsequently he refused to give the statement. Two witnesses died in suspicious circumstances."

Considering that all prime accused are extremely well-connected politically, in 2020, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ordered it to conduct investigation not only into the murder, but also into the allegations of larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence.

The Investigating Officers filed 3 chargesheets in October 2021, January 2022 and June 2023. The petitioners herein were implicated due to the confession of Shaik Dasthagiri (A4).

The contention of the petitioners was that solely on the basis of the confession of Shaik Dasthagiri, they were assumed to have been involved in the case and that there was no direct evidence to link them to the murder. It was contended that the statements of A4 recorded under section 161, 164 and 306 of CrPC were inconsistent.

Further it was averred that the CBI cellular data tracking and "Google Take out" to pinpoint the whereabouts of the accused was not admissible evidence and could not be relied upon.

The senior counsel reassured the Court that if allegations of witness coercion came up, the bails could be cancelled.

The Court observed that A4 was granted pardon by the Sessions Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated that the High Court is not a Court of trial and that the "Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry regarding the prosecution case while deciding bail petition and this Court cannot consider the reliability of the statements of prosecution witnesses."

The Court lastly noticed that any allegations against the investigating officer had also been stayed and that thus, the petitioner failed to carve out a case for bails.

Considering the grave nature of the allegations and the possibility of the accused to influence witnesses, the Court held:

"In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to grant bails to the petitioners herein at this stage and both the criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed."

Case Title: Yeduguri Sandinti Bhaskar Reddy vs. The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation

Case Title: Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy vs. The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation

Counsel for the petitioners: T.Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel, representing T.Nagarjuna Reddy, and Ch.Siddardha Sarma.

Counsel for respondents: Anil Tenwar, Spl.Public Prosecutor for CBI

B.Nalin Kunar, Senior counsel representing Ms.Tekuru Swetcha

Date: 04.09.23

Click Here To Read/Download Order