Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

There is No Question of Granting a Similar Relief Which Will Virtually Overrule the Earlier Decision Without There Being a Change in Fact Situation – Telangana High Court Denies Bail in Conspiratorial Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court, presided over by Justice K. Lakshman, dismissed the sixth bail application of Dr. Suneetha Narreddy, involved in a gruesome murder and evidence tampering case, underlining the need for a substantial change of circumstances for successive bail applications.

The court meticulously examined the application within the ambit of precedents set by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that without a significant change in circumstances, successive bail applications following a prior rejection hold little merit.

Dr. Suneetha Narreddy, accused of conspiracy and murder alongside destruction of evidence, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The charges against the petitioner included premeditated murder facilitated by elaborate planning with other co-accused, resulting in severe judicial scrutiny given the gravity of allegations.

Evidence and Involvement: The court considered extensive evidence including forensic analysis, witness testimonies, and prior statements of co-accused that corroborated Narreddy’s active involvement in both the conspiracy and execution phases of the crime.

Legal Precedents: Citing multiple Supreme Court decisions, Justice Lakshman highlighted that mere duration of incarceration or the slow pace of trial proceedings does not justify bail in cases involving severe allegations like murder. Notable references included the landmark cases of State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddikota Subba Rao and State of UP through CBI vs. Amaramani Tripathi.

Parity Argument: Arguments of parity with co-accused who were granted bail under different circumstances were dismissed. The court stressed that each accused's role and evidence against them are crucial in determining their eligibility for bail.

Threat to Witnesses: A significant concern was the potential threat to witnesses and fair trial disruptions, with allegations that Narreddy could tamper with evidence and influence witnesses if released.

Decision: The court dismissed the bail application, marking it as Dr. Narreddy’s sixth unsuccessful attempt. The judgment underscored the unchanged circumstances and the serious nature of the allegations, which substantiate the decision to keep Narreddy in custody to ensure a fair trial.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024.

Dr. Suneetha Narreddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),

Similar News