High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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