Jaganmohan Reddy, the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the opposite leader at the time of the incident.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
Thereafter, the SIT was re-constituted twice, but there was no progress in the investigation and therefore petitioner No.1 was constrained to approach the High Court to transfer the investigation to the CBI. Avinash Reddy who is a sitting Member of Parliament from the ruling party in Andhra Pradesh came to light and he was mentioned as a suspect and he played a key role in the destruction of the evidence and spreading false news that the deceased died due to heart attack, the said Y.S.
It is submitted that thereafter the CBI officers have not resumed investigation anticipating more false complaints at the behest of the accused and interference by the State authorities if they resume investigation by travelling to Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that therefore the petitioners have reasonable apprehension that there shall not be any fair and independent trial if the same is continued at CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. Siva Shankar Reddy (A5) himself had approached CBI and thereafter his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
However, thereafter his suspension came to be revoked on 6.10.2021 and he was reinstated in service and therefore thereafter he is not appearing for recording his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. 1 While opposing the present petition, learned senior counsel/counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/impleaders have vehemently submitted that the present petition for the reliefs sought may not be entertained.
2 It is submitted that the primary contentions of the petitioners are in relation to witnesses being influenced and threat to lives of accused No.4 – the approver and other witnesses. Rajasekhara Reddy (former Chief Minister of the united State of Andhra Pradesh) and uncle of Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the opposite leader at the time of the incident.
Therefore, it is apprehended that there is every likelihood that there may not be a fair and impartial trial and even further investigation on the issue of larger conspiracy for murder and destruction of evidence at the scene of crime because of the influence on the part of the accused and the State machinery.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. It is true that as per the settled position of law and even as observed and held by this Court in the case of Amarinder Singh (supra) for transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done. Thereafter, the SIT was re- constituted twice, but there was no progress in the investigation and therefore petitioner No.2 was constrained to approach the High Court for transfer of investigation to CBI.
However, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, further investigation by the CBI on the issue of larger conspiracy of murder and destruction of evidence at the scheme of crime is still continuing. has not appeared for recording of his statement, though initially he volunteered to given the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that apprehension on the part of the petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased that there may not be a fair trial and that there may not be any independent and fair investigation with respect to further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence at the scene of incident is imaginary and/or has no substance at all.
The trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC- III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh is hereby ordered to be transferred to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad.
SHAH] NEW DELHI;
Case Title: SUNEETHA NARREDDY Vs. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2022 INSC 1238)
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.-000169 / 2022
