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
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.
Legal Point Highlighted:
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.
Facts and Issues:
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.
Detailed Court Assessment:
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),
