The Supreme Court is scheduled to address the appeal against the Telangana High Court’s order on Friday, along with an appeal filed by T Gangi Reddy, the accused in a murder case. During the hearing on a petition challenging the unusual order by the Telangana High Court, the Supreme Court raised concerns about how a court can cancel bail for a murder accused and then order their release on bail in the same order. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) described the high court’s decision as an extraordinary occurrence in the realm of bail jurisprudence.
In the order issued on April 27, the high court revoked the statutory bail granted to T Gangi Reddy in June 2019. The bail had been granted because the investigating agency failed to file charges against him within the stipulated 90-day period. However, in the same order, the high court directed the release of T Gangi Reddy on bail on July 1, upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, considering the Supreme Court’s deadline of June 30 for the completion of the CBI’s investigation.
Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over High Court’s Unusual Bail Order in Murder Case
The vacation bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal questioned the high court’s decision during Wednesday’s hearing on a petition filed by Suneetha Narreddy, the daughter of the deceased former MP. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Suneetha Narreddy, argued that such an order was unprecedented and did not adhere to the established principles governing the grant of bail.
Luthra pointed out that the customary procedure for an accused in custody to apply for bail involves considering the merits of the case after hearing arguments from the accused, the state, and the victim. However, in this instance, Luthra argued that the established procedure had been completely disregarded.
The CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, remarked that this type of order was akin to the “eighth marvel” in bail jurisprudence. Jain contended that the latter part of the order nullified the rest of it, questioning how bail could be both canceled and granted simultaneously.
Initially, the Supreme Court was expected to deliver its verdict during the hearing. However, the case was deferred to Friday after senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for Gangi Reddy, informed the bench that he was also challenging the high court’s cancellation of bail and was in the process of getting the petition listed. The bench agreed to hear both appeals together, emphasizing the need to provide a balanced and reasoned order if the accused had contested the correctness of the high court’s decision.
Former MP Vivekananda Reddy was discovered deceased in his home in Pulivendula, Kadapa district, on March 15, 2019. The CBI took over the investigation in March 2020 following a petition by the deceased’s family, expressing dissatisfaction with the progress of the inquiry conducted by the state police.
Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over High Court’s Contradictory Bail Order in Murder Case Appeal
In November of the previous year, the Supreme Court directed the trial to be moved from Kadapa to Hyderabad due to concerns about a fair trial stemming from the close association between Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy and YSR Congress Party MP YS Avinash Reddy, who was a suspect in the murder of his cousin.
This is the second time in a month that the Supreme Court has expressed displeasure with the high court’s order in this case. On April 24, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud set aside the high court’s April 18 order, which directed the CBI to supply a written questionnaire to Avinash Reddy before interrogating him. The bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud stated that such an order would hinder the investigation and that there was no justification for the high court to require questions to be given to an accused in written or printed form. The court emphasized that such orders have the potential to prejudice the course of the investigation, particularly when the CBI needs to thoroughly examine the role of the accused.
The Supreme Court’s reservations about the high court’s order are part of an ongoing concern over the handling of the murder case. The involvement of prominent political figures and the perceived irregularities in the legal proceedings have raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the investigation.
The murder of former MP Vivekananda Reddy sent shockwaves through the region, prompting his family to seek justice through legal channels. Dissatisfied with the progress made by the state police, they approached the CBI to take over the case. The CBI commenced its investigation in March 2020 and has been working diligently to uncover the truth behind the tragic incident.
The high court’s decision to cancel the statutory bail initially granted to T Gangi Reddy in June 2019 was based on the CBI’s failure to file charges within the prescribed timeframe. However, the subsequent order granting bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh raised eyebrows and sparked a heated debate among legal experts. Such contradictory decisions within the same order were deemed unprecedented and not in line with established legal principles surrounding the grant of bail.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Suneetha Narreddy, argued that the high court’s order deviated from the standard bail procedure, which involves a comprehensive evaluation of the case and a fair hearing for all parties involved. Luthra highlighted the need to uphold the principles of justice and ensure that the accused is given a fair opportunity to present their case while also considering the interests of the state and the victim.
The CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, echoed the Supreme Court’s concerns, describing the high court’s order as an extraordinary occurrence in bail jurisprudence. Jain emphasised the contradictory nature of the order, pointing out that canceling and granting bail simultaneously not only defied logic but also undermined the credibility of the judicial process.
As the legal battle continues, the grieving family of the deceased former MP anxiously awaits a resolution, hoping that justice will be served and the truth behind the tragic murder will finally be revealed. The outcome of the Supreme Court‘s ruling will not only impact the accused and the victim’s family but will also have broader implications for the Indian legal system, setting precedents for future cases and shaping the way in which bail is granted and revoked in complex criminal proceedings.