Court Cannot Deny Bail On The Grounds Of Section 43(5) Of Uapa Act In The Murder Case

Case title:

Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. vs Union of India

Date of Order:

17th April 2023

Bench:

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal

Parties:

Petitioner: Yedala Subba Rao & Anr.

Defendant: Union of India

Facts:

• The prosecution's argument is that a convoy of vehicles carrying Sarveswara Rao and Soma was stopped by 45 accused individuals who belonged to the Communist Party of India (CPI) (Maoist), a prohibited organisation listed in the first schedule of the UAPA. They were forced out of their cars by the accused, who then shot them dead.
• On September 23, 2018, the day of the incident, Sarveswara Rao's personal secretary filed a FIR.
• An Andhra Pradesh government special investigative team first handled the probe. On December 6, 2018, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) received the investigation.
• On October 13, 2018, the petitioners were taken into custody. On April 10, 2019, a chargesheet was submitted. Although there were originally 85 accused people listed, just 79 were named in the chargesheet. There are currently 144 witnesses listed in the charge sheet.

Issues Raised:

A question was raised before the apex court whether there are any reasonable grounds to believe that the accused should not be granted bail as per 43(5) of UAPA Act?

Arguments:

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to grant bail to Defendant No. 84 on December 15, 2020, was noted by the Supreme Court. The call detailed records of the telephone conversation between Subba Rao and accused no. 84 were taken into account by the high court when it issued its ruling. The high court further noted that Subba Rao was a former sarpanch of the hamlet where Defendant No. 84 was employed as a teacher at a government institution, and that it was only reasonable that as a former sarpanch, he would frequently be approached by locals.
• Regarding the calls made and received by these two accused both on the day of the act and after, the high court noted that it is common for a former sarpanch to receive numerous calls soon after committing an offence of this nature.
• The high court's statement that Subba Rao purchased drugs worth 8,000 rupees at the behest of Accused No. 84 and gave them to a Maoist named Kiran was also noted by the Supreme Court. The high court noted that Kiran was detained on the day of the incident and that she had been apprehended on September 18, 2018, according to the chargesheet submitted against Subba Rao. 
• The Supreme Court itself questioned the relationship between the incident that occurred on September 23, 2018, and Subba Rao's purchase of medications for $8,000 at the request of Accused No. 84 considerably earlier in the occurrence. This was in addition to the fact that accused number 84 had been granted bail by the high court, the Supreme Court stated.
• The publicly disclosed statement made by Subba Rao was not initially admissible in court, the Supreme Court further ruled. According to the prosecution, Subba Rao admitted in his disclosure statement that he bought a large number of drugs for 8,000 and gave one to a Maoist.
• Additionally, it stated that during the investigation, a statement from a man named G. Narasinga Rao, who was purportedly operating the aforementioned medical shop, was recorded. He claimed in the statement that an NIA team visited his store on January 16, 2019, and asked questions about the sale of a significant number of drugs in July 2018. Subba Rao had travelled with the team.
• The court stated, this shows that the NIA team was already aware of the location of the shop from which [Subba Rao] was allegedly to have purchased a large quantity of medicines in July 2018.
• The court remarked that it was not the prosecution's argument that the landmine was recovered at the request of Sobhan with regard to the recovery of a landmine at the request of Subba Rao.
• It was decided that Subba Rao had not made any confessional statements indicating that he was able to identify the location of the landmine's placement.
• The "Mediators' Report and Seizure Panchnama" is "prima facie" not helpful to the prosecution in demonstrating that the landmine was found at Subba Rao's request, the court held.
• He was carrying Maoist literature and banners, according to his statement. Eight brochures, two banners, one landmine, electric wire, and detonators were taken from four people, according to the panchnama. The panchnama doesn't clearly state that Sobhan's banners and flyers were found. The prosecution's claim that [Sobhan] and a person named Kiran were discovered in a specific location on September 23, 2018, appeared to be highly shaky, the court said.
• The court then moved to grant parole to the appellants based on this material analysis.

Analysis:

• In the case involving the murders of Kidari Sarveswara Rao, a member of the Legislative Assembly, and Siveri Soma, a former MLA who belonged to the Telugu Desam Party, the Supreme Court has granted bail to two of the defendants.
• The argument put forth by the appellants was that they and other co-accused individuals were being prosecuted for crimes covered by Section 120B read in conjunction with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 (UAPA), and Section 39 of the UAPA.
• On the other side, the respondent's attorney argued that the landmine was found at the appellant's request close to the village that the deceased political figures were scheduled to visit. According to the Apex Court, only that portion of the information provided by the accused that was clearly associated with the aforementioned discovery was admissible against the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• As a result, the appellants were granted bail since the proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D's ban on the granting of bail did not apply in this particular instance. The Court ordered the Special Judge in charge of the NIA cases trial in Vijayawada to set appropriate bail terms after consulting with the parties in order to release the appellants-accused.

Conclusion:

In the present case, there were 140 witnesses but there was no definite evidence found by the court as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1879. A few accused absconded and the 2 accused were sentenced to jail for four and half years. Since no evidence were found the Supreme Court of India granted bail to the accused of the murder case of MLA & Former MLA of the state Andhra Pradesh.