1  
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 528 OF 2020
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 7053 OF 2013
Gali Janardhan Reddy       ..Appellant (S)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh       ..Respondent (S)
WITH 
DIARY NO. 11949 OF 2021
Gali Janardhan Reddy       ..Appellant (S)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh       ..Respondent (S)
O R D E R
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Present application  has been preferred by  the applicant

  2  
–   original   accused   for   an   appropriate   order   of
modification   of   condition   No. (c)   of   the   order   dated
28.01.2015   passed   by   this   Court   in   Special   Leave
Petition (Cri.) No.7053/2013 to the extent permitting the
applicant   to   enter,   stay   and   function   in   the   Districts   of
Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and
Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh. 
2. The   applicant   herein   is   the   accused   in   RC   17(A)/2009­
CBI­HYD dated 07.12.2009 as amended on 05.09.2011,
for   the   offences   under   Sections   120(B),   420,   379,   409,
468, 411, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
section   2   of   the   Indian   Forest   Act,   1927,   Rule   21   read
with   Rules   4(1),   4(1)(A)   and   23   of   the   Mines   and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. That,
the   applicant   –   accused   was   arrested   by   the   CBI   on
05.09.2011. Prior to coming to this Court, the applicant
– accused approached the learned trial Court as well as
the   High   Court   for   the   grant   of   regular   bail   on   number
of occasions. The said request of the applicant – accused
was rejected  inter alia  on the ground that grant of bail to
the   applicant   –   accused   may   impede   fair   and
uninfluenced   investigation.   That,   when   the   applicant   –
accused   lastly   approached   the   High   Court   in   the   year
2013   by   way   of   filing   Criminal   Petition   No.3632/2013,
vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 , considering
the   gravity   of   the   allegations   leveled   against   the

  3  
applicant   –   accused,   his   influential   status   and   the   CBI
indicated a reasonable apprehension that the accused is
likely   to   influence   the   investigation   if   enlarged   on   bail,
the   High   Court   rejected   the   bail   application.   The
applicant approached this Court by way of Special Leave
Petition   (Cri.)   No.7053/2013.   By   an   order   dated
20.01.2015,   the   order   which   is   sought   to   be   now
modified,   this   Court   had   released   the   applicant   on   bail
subject to following conditions:
“ a) He   shall   surrender   his   passport,   if   not
already   surrendered,   to   the   learned   Principal
Special   Judge   for   CBI   Cases,   Hyderabad.   If   he
has   already   surrendered   his   passport   before
the   learned   Principal   Special   Judge,   that   fact
should also be supported by an affidavit;
b) He   shall   not   leave   the   country   without
the   leave   of   the   learned   Principal   Special
Judge;
c) He shall not visit the Districts of Bellary
in   Karnataka   and   District   of   Ananthapuram
and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh;
d) He shall cooperate with the Court in the
smooth   process   of   trial   and   its   early

  4  
conclusion;
e) He   shall   not   directly   or   indirectly   make
any   inducement,   threat   or   promise   to   any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as   to   dissuade   such   person   from   disclosing
such   facts   to   the   Court   or   to   tamper   with   the
evidence;
f) He   shall   remain   present   before   the
learned   Principal   Special   Judge   on   the   dates
fixed   for   hearing   of   the   case   without   fail.   If   he
requires   to   remain   absent,   he   shall   take   prior
permission   of   the   learned   Principal   Special
Judge   and   in   case   of   unavoidable
circumstances   for   remaining   absent,   he   shall
immediately appropriately intimate the learned
Principal   Special   Judge   and   also   to   the
Superintendent,   CBI   and   request   that   he   may
be   permitted   to   be   present   through   the
counsel.
g) Insofar   as   the   surety   amount   is
concerned,   the   petitioner   shall   execute   a   bond
with   two   solvent   sureties,   in   a   sum   of
Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten lakhs only) each.

  5  
h) If,   for   any   reason   the   petitioner   fails   to
comply   with   all   the   conditions   as   stipulated
above,   the   respondents   are   at   liberty   to
approach this Court for modification / recall of
the order granting bail to the petitioner.
10. The   grant   of   bail   to   the   petitioner   shall   be
subject to any other cases that are pending against
the   petitioner,   wherein   the   petitioner   is   yet   to   be
granted bail by the appropriate court(s).” 
3. Present application  has been preferred by  the applicant
–   accused   to   modify   and/or   delete   condition   No. (c)
reproduced   hereinabove   and   thereby   permit   him   to
enter,   stay   and   function   in   the   Districts   of   Ballery   in
Karnataka   and   District   of   Ananthapuram   and
Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
4. At   this   stage   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   in   the   year
2016   a   similar   request   was   made   to   delete   the
conditions that were imposed while granting bail. By an
order   dated   01.07.2016,   this   Court   dismissed   the   said
application, however, directed the trial Court to make an
endeavour   to   complete   the   trial   expeditiously.   That,
thereafter,   one   another   application   was   made   being
Criminal   Miscellaneous   Petition   No.6534/2017   for
modification   of   the   condition   imposed   while   granting

  6  
bail  which  came  to be rejected  by  this Court vide order
dated   09.05.2017.   That,   thereafter,   the   present
application   has   been   preferred.   By   an   order   dated
19.08.2021, this Court while adjourning the application
to   third   week   of   November,   2021,   has   modified   and
substituted the condition No. (c)  as under: 
“ (c) As   and   when   the   petitioner   proposes   to
visit   any   of   the   following   districts,   being
District   Ballery   in   Karnataka   and
Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra
Pradesh, he shall give prior intimation to the
Superintendent   of   Police   of   the   concerned
district of the date when he proposes to go to
the   district   and   further   he   shall   also   give
prior   intimation   to   the   concerned
Superintendent   of   Police   of   the   date   of   his
departure from the said district.”
Condition   No.(h)   imposed   in   the   order
dated 20.01.2015 is reiterated.”
  This   Court   has   also   observed   that   the   trial   Court
shall   make   endeavour   to   proceed   with   the   trial
expeditiously.
5. Thereafter, the present application is notified before the
Bench for further hearing. 

  7  
6. Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has
appeared   on   behalf   of   the   applicant   –   accused   and   Ms.
Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of
the respondent – CBI. 
7. Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   for   the   applicant   has   vehemently   submitted
that   after   the   initial   order   was   passed   by   this   Court   in
the year 2015 granting bail on the conditions mentioned
in the said order, the applicant has visited Bellary on 8
to   9   occasions   pursuant   to   the   permissions   granted   by
this Court and during  the said visits, the applicant has
never   violated   any   of   the   conditions   imposed   by   this
Court in the bail order. It is submitted that in past more
than   6   to   7   years   since   the   bail   has   been   granted,   the
applicant   has   not   violated   any   of   the   conditions   as
imposed. It is submitted that the trial has not proceeded
further for which the applicant is not at all responsible.
It   is   submitted   that   the   delay   in   the   trial   is   not
attributable   to   the   applicant.   It   is,   therefore,   requested
to modify the condition No. (c)  as mentioned in the order
dated   20.01.2015   and   permit   the   applicant   to   enter,
stay   and   function   in   the   Districts   of   Bellary   in
Karnataka   and   District   of   Ananthapuram   and
Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh. 
7.1 In the alternative it is prayed to continue modification of
condition   No. (c)   as   per   the   order   passed   by   this   Court

  8  
on 19.08.2021. 
8. Present   application   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.
Madhavi Divan, learned ASG. It is vehemently submitted
that   CBI   has   strong   apprehension   that   if   the   condition
No. (c)   so   imposed   by   this   Court   in   the   order   dated
20.01.2015   is   modified   and/or   substituted,   the
applicant   may   influence   the   witnesses   which   may
ultimately   affect   the   trial   and   the   judicial   process.   It   is
submitted that in past, attempts were made to influence
even the Judicial Officers which is already on record. It
is   submitted   that   despite   the   orders   passed   by   this
Court, the trial is not proceeding because of the conduct
on   the   part   of   the   accused   persons   by   filing   one   after
another discharge applications. 
9. Ms.   Madhavi   Divan,   learned   ASG   has   submitted   that
therefore   in   case   condition   No. (c)   of   the   order   dated
20.01.2015 is modified, there would be serious threat to
the   witnesses   because   of   the   power   and   influence   that
the applicant is having. It is submitted that still as and
when   there   is   any   emergency   the   applicant   may   still
move   this   Court   for   appropriate   permission   which   may
be   considered   on   case   to   case   basis   and   therefore,   to
that   extent,   the   interest   of   the   applicant   can   be   taken
care of. 

  9  
10. In   response,   Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   Senior
Advocate   in   the   alternative   has   submitted   that   as   the
daughter  of  the  applicant has recently   delivered  a child
at   Bengaluru   and   now   she   is   at   Bellary,   the   applicant
may be permitted to visit and stay at Bellary atleast for
a period of four weeks to be with his daughter. 
11. On the aforesaid alternative prayer, Ms. Madhavi Divan,
learned ASG has pointed out that in fact the daughter of
the   applicant had delivered the child at Bengaluru and
she was never at Bellary. It is submitted that only after
present   application   was   heard   by   this   Court   on
29.09.2022, in the evening the daughter of the applicant
is   shifted   to   Bellary.   Therefore,   it   is   prayed   to   consider
the aforesaid conduct on the part of the applicant. 
12. We   have   heard   Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   Senior
Advocate   appearing   for   the   applicant   and   Ms.   Madhavi
Divan,   learned   ASG   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   CBI   at
length.   We   have   considered   the   submissions   made   on
behalf of the respective parties. We have considered the
material on record. 
13. The applicant is facing the trial for very serious offences
punishable   under   Sections   120(B),   420,   379,   409,   468,
411,   427   and   447   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860,
section   2   of   the   Indian   Forest   Act,   1927,   Rule   21   read
with   Rules   4(1),   4(1)(A)   and   23   of   the   Mines   and

  10  
Minerals   (Development   and   Regulation)   Act,   1957.   The
investigation   was   carried   out   by   the   CBI.   Most   of   the
witnesses are from  Bellary  in  Karnataka and District of
Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra   Pradesh.
Taking  into  consideration  the apprehension on the part
of the CBI that if the applicant is allowed to enter, stay
and function in the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and
District   of   Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra
Pradesh   and   that   there   are   all   possibilities   of   applicant
influencing   and/or   tampering   with   the   witnesses,   this
Court   while   granting   bail   imposed   condition   No. (c)
restraining the applicant from entering into the Districts
of   Bellary   in   Karnataka   and   District   of   Ananthapuram
and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra   Pradesh.   In   past,   the
apprehensions   are   proved   to   be   true   and   even   the
judicial officers were influenced / tried to be influenced.
There is a serious apprehension on the part of the CBI /
investigating   agency   that   if   condition   No. (c)   is   relaxed
and/or   modified   and/or   substituted,   there   would   be
threat   to   the   witnesses   because   of   the   power   and
influence   that   the   applicant   is   having.   It   is   very
unfortunate that even after a period of 11 years of filing
the FIR and despite the observations made by this Court
directing   the   trial   to   be   expedited,   the   trial   has   not
begun. From the material on record, it appears that the
trial has not begun on the ground that the accused / co­
accused   are   filing   the   applications   for   discharge   one

  11  
after another, due to which the trial has not begun. In a
case like this, it is always in the larger interest that the
trial is concluded at the earliest. Early conclusion of the
trial would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery
system.   The   trial   must   come   to   its   logical   end   at   the
earliest. Any attempt on the part of the accused to delay
the   trial   of   serious   offences   is   to   be   dealt   with   iron
hands.   More   the   delay,   more   the   possibilities   of
influencing   the   witnesses.   Therefore,   we   are   of   the
opinion   that   as   despite   the   observations   made   by   this
Court directing to expedite the trial, as the trial has not
begun, now, a direction is to be issued to the trial Court
to begin the trial on day to day basis and once the trial
begins   the   applicant   –   accused   may   be   restrained   from
entering   into   the   Districts   of   Bellary   in   Karnataka   and
District   of   Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra
Pradesh looking to the strong apprehension on the part
of the CBI recorded hereinabove. 
14. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,
we   dispose   of   /   dismiss   the   present   application   for
modification   /   substitution   of   condition   No. (c)   in   the
order dated 28.01.2015 passed by this Court in Special
Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 7053/2013. However, we direct
as under: 
(1) Learned   trial   Court   /   Special   Court   is   hereby
directed   to   conduct   the   trial   on   day   to   day   basis

  12  
from   09.11.2022.   We   direct   the   learned   Special
Court   to   conclude   the   trial   within   a   period   of   six
months from 09.11.2022 without fail;
(2) That   the   prosecution   may   examine   first,   the
witnesses from Bellary in Karnataka and District of
Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra   Pradesh
as   far   as   possible.   It   will   be   the   duty   of   the
investigating   agency   to   keep   all   the   witnesses
present   for   the   purpose   of   their   depositions   /
examination in chief;
(3) All   the   accused   are   hereby   directed   to   cooperate
the learned Special Court in conclusion of the trial
at   the   earliest   and   within   the   period   stipulated
hereinabove   and   any   attempt   on   the   part   of   the
accused   to   delay   the   trial   shall   be   viewed   very
seriously;
(4) As it is reported that the daughter of the applicant
has   delivered   a   child   recently   and   now   she   is   at
Bellary,   the   applicant   is   permitted   to   stay   at
Bellary   upto   06.11.2022.   It   is   specifically   directed
that   the   applicant   shall   move   out   of   Bellary   and
remain out of Bellary in Karnataka and Districts of
Ananthapuram   and   Cuddapah   in   Andhra   Pradesh
from 07.11.2022 till the trial is concluded.

  13  
15. With   the   aforesaid   directions,   present   application   shall
stand   disposed   of.   Registry   is   directed   to   send   the
present order to the learned Special Court forthwith. 
………………………………… J.
     (M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
NEW DELHI, 
OCTOBER 10, 2022