Page 1

“  NON-REPORTABLE  ”   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NOS.1595-1596      OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 4409-4410 of 2012)

Younus Bin Omer Yafai @  Younus Bhai & Ors. …. Appellants

Versus

State of A.P. …. Respondent

WITH

CRLMP Nos. 18203-18204 of 2012 IN

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NOS.1597-1598     OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.7919-7920 of 2012)

State of Andhra Pradesh …. Appellant

Versus

Awad Bin Younus Yafai etc. …. Respondents

WITH

CRLMP No. 19162 of 2012 IN

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.1599     OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7921  of 2012)

State of Andhra Pradesh …. Appellant

Versus

Mohammed Bin Saleh Wahlan & Ors. …. Respondents

WITH

1

Page 2

CRLMP No. 19175 of 2012 IN

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.1600     OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7922 of 2012)

State of Andhra Pradesh …. Appellant

Versus

Abdulla Bin Younus Yafai …. Respondent

O     R     D     E     R   

1. Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition is condoned in Special  

Leave Petition (R)…. CRLMP nos. 18203-18204 of 2012, Special Leave  

Petition (R)….CRLMP no. 19162 of 2012 and Special Leave Petition (R)….  

CRLMP no. 19175 of 2012.

2. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

3. On 13.4.2011, Shri Akberuddin Owaisi, a sitting Member of the  

Legislative Assembly from the Chandrayangutta Constituency (hereinafter  

referred to as, the MLA), alongwith Government officials, is alleged to have  

visited Gurram Cheruvu area on Balapur road for inspection.  The purpose  

of the inspection was to identify government lands which were under  

encroachment of private individuals.  In the course of the aforesaid  

inspection, while on his way back, it is alleged that he halted near the patta  

lands of the family of the accused.  Accused nos. 6 and 7 were present at  

the spot, at that time.  Accused no. 6 allegedly objected to the MLA  

pointing out their lands to Government officials.  This, in turn, resulted in a  

2

Page 3

heated exchange of words between them, during which accused No. 6  

allegedly warned the MLA of dire consequences.

4. On 14.4.2011, accused nos. 1 to 10 and 12 to 14 allegedly held a  

meeting at Omer Function Hall, Chandrayangutta, wherein they decided to  

eliminate the MLA.  Accused no. 11 is alleged to have business  

investments in the lands in question.  It is also alleged, that accused no. 11  

supported the decision of the other accused, to eliminate the MLA.

5. On 30.4.2011, the MLA alongwith another MLA Shri Ahmed Bala and  

his supporters, after having concluded a meeting at the Corporator’s Office,  

were in the process of getting into their respective vehicles.  It is alleged,  

that accused nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 10 and 13 to 15 had already gathered outside  

the Corporator’s office.  As the MLA sat in his Maruti Gypsy, in order to  

stop the MLA from proceeding further, accused no. 2 is alleged to have  

driven his motorcycle and thrown it in front of the vehicle of the MLA.  

Thereafter, the accused are alleged to have attacked and beaten up the  

MLA with knives etc., causing him serious injuries.  The accused are also  

alleged to have fired at the MLA from a revolver which resulted in injuries  

to him in the abdominal area.  The remaining accused are alleged to have  

stopped those who tried to intervene to save the MLA.  These remaining  

accused are also alleged to have caused injuries to the persons who tried  

to save the MLA and his supporters.

3

Page 4

6. A police constable who had been deputed for the personal security of  

the MLA, is alleged to have fired at the assailants, resulting in bullet  

injuries to accused nos. 3 to 5.

7. The MLA was taken to Owaisi Hospital immediately after the  

incident.  On the same day, at about 9 P.M., he was shifted to Care  

Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.  Accused nos. 3 to 5 who suffered  

bullet injuries, were taken to Yashoda Hospital, where accused nos. 3 and  

5 were admitted for treatment.  Accused no. 4 died due to bullet injuries  

suffered by him.

8. On 30.4.2011 itself, at about 2 P.M., Shri Mansoor Bin Mohammad  

Awalgi, Corporator of Barkas Division filed a complaint at Police Station  

Chandrayangutta, which led to registration of First Information Report (FIR)  

no. 135 of 2011 against 16 accused (actually 15, since accused No. 4 had  

died of bullet injuries).  The aforesaid FIR was registered under Sections  

147, 148, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 149 and  

120 of the Indian Penal Code, as also, Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms  

Act.   

9. It is also necessary to notice, that accused nos. 1, 2 and 6 are real  

brothers.  They lived together at Barkas, Hyderabad.  Accused nos. 3, 4, 5,  

7, 8 and 13 are sons of accused No. 6.  Accused no. 11 is allegedly a  

family friend and business partner of accused nos. 1 and 6.  There is also a  

4

Page 5

contrary version.  It is the case of the accused, that the MLA and his  

supporters went to the house of accused no. 1 and tried to molest the  

womenfolk.  The fight between the rival parties is stated to have taken  

place on account of the said incident.  Based on the aforesaid version, the  

case of the accused has been, that the accused are actually the victims.  

This factual position stands duly noticed in paragraph 9 of the impugned  

order.

10. Accused nos. 6 and 11 were arrested on 3.5.2011.  The trial Court  

rejected the bail application of accused nos. 6 and 11 on 8.7.2011.  The  

order passed by the trial Court was assailed before the High Court of  

Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, the  

High Court).  On 21.7.2011, the High Court granted bail to accused nos. 6  

and 11.  In a separate petition filed before the High Court, bail was granted  

to accused no. 5 on 24.8.2011.  In yet another petition, the High Court  

granted bail to accused nos. 1, 2 and 7 to 10 on 8.9.2011.  The aforesaid  

orders passed by the High Court dated 21.7.2011, 24.8.2011 and 8.9.2011  

were assailed before this Court.  On 16.3.2012, this Court passed the  

following order:-

“Leave granted.

We have heard Mr. Harin Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor  General and Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel for the  respondents.  We have gone through the impugned judgment and  order dated 21.7.2011, and perused the record of the case.  Learned  counsel for the appellant has contended that without assigning any  

5

Page 6

reason the High Court has passed the order granting bail to the  respondents.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not  satisfied with the manner in which the bail application has been  disposed of by the High Court as no reason whatsoever, has been  assigned for grant of bail.

In view of the above, impugned order dated 21.7.2011 is set aside  and we request the High Court to decide the bail application afresh  within a period of six weeks from today.  The respondents shall  remain protected in the meantime.

However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view one  way or the other on the merits of the case.

In case the application is not disposed of within the stipulated time,  the respondents shall be at liberty to renew their prayer for interim  bail before the High Court.

Needless to say that the parties will co-operate and will not take  unwarranted adjournments before the High Court.

The appeal is disposed of.”

On the same day, in a connected matter, this Court set aside the order of  

the High Court, wherein the High Court had directed the Station House  

Officer, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad to register a case/crime at the  

behest of the accused herein.  The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is  

being reproduced hereunder:-

“It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that  the High Court while dealing with the bail application has passed the  following order:-

(2) The Station House Officer, Central Crime Station,  Hyderabad, is directed to register a case/crime under  appropriate sections of law and against all the persons  concerned on the incident of police gunmen opening fire  against the accused party in this case after recording  statement of the petitioner/A5 or after receiving written  

6

Page 7

report given by him and to investigate into the same as  per law; and

(3) Directing the Government of Andhra Pradesh to initiate  Magisterial enquiry into the incident relating to opening  of fire by the police gunmen attached to the MLA of  Malakpet constituency causing death of A-4 and causing  bullet injuries to A-3 and A-5, and after receiving report  of the Magistrate to take steps according to law.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing Mr.  Harin Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Altaf  Ahmad, learned senior counsel for the respondents and having gone  through the impugned judgment and order dated 21.7.2011, we are  of the view that it was not permissible for the High Court to issue the  aforesaid directions contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 while dealing  with the bail application.  This kind of direction could be issued only  while dealing with the petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the  Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure.

In view of the above, with the aforesaid directions, the impugned  judgment and order of the High Court are set aside.  Needless to say  that any consequential order passed/FIR lodged, if any, shall stand  washed off and would remain inconsequential.

However, it shall be open to the applicants to approach the  appropriate forum for seeking appropriate directions/remedy in  accordance with law.

With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.”

11. Consequent upon the orders passed by this Court on 16.3.2012, the  

bail applications filed by the accused before the High Court, were taken up  

for reconsideration.  It was contended before the High Court that inspite of  

the fact that accused nos. 3 and 12 were alleged to have been armed with  

fire arms and had fired at the MLA, they were released on bail, and the  

order by which they were released, had not been assailed.  It was  

submitted, that the accused praying for bail before the High Court, were not  

7

Page 8

alleged to have caused any injury to the MLA or his supporters nor they  

were alleged to be in possession of fire arms.  It was further stated, that  

consequent upon release of some of the accused on bail by the High Court  

(vide orders dated 21.7.2011, 24.8.2011 and 8.9.2011), the accused had  

remained on bail till this Court set aside the order passed by the High  

Court, on 16.3.2012.  It was pointed out that none of the accused released  

on bail, had misused their freedom in any manner whatsoever.  It was also  

submitted on behalf of the accused, that three of the accused had also  

suffered bullet injuries i.e., accused nos. 3 to 5.  All the three accused who  

had suffered bullet injuries were taken to Yashoda Hospital, where acused  

nos. 3 and 5 were admitted for treatment, whereas accused no. 4 died of  

the bullet injuries suffered by him.  It was, therefore, contended that the  

injuries to the accused side were far serious than the injuries suffered by  

the complainant side.  It was also contended, that the accused side is  

seriously prejudiced on account of the influence of the MLA, in as much as,  

all efforts made by the accused party to register a complaint expressing  

their side of the story, had remained futile.  It was also contended on behalf  

of accused, that most of the accused comprised of members of one family  

alone who had been victimized on account of the influence of the MLA.

12. Having considered the submissions advanced at the hands of the  

rival parties before the High Court, on 25.4.2012, the High Court ordered,  

8

Page 9

that accused nos. 2, 5 and 7 to 10 shall continue to remain on bail.  

Accused nos. 1, 6 and 11 were declined bail.

13. The aforesaid order of the High Court dated 25.4.2012, has been  

assailed through several special leave petitions.  Special Leave Petition  

(Crl.) Nos. 4409-4410 of 2012 were filed on behalf of accused nos. 1, 6 and  

11 who had been declined bail.  Special Leave Petitions (R)…. CRLMP  

Nos. 18203-18204 of 2012 were filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh  

assailing the order of the High Court for granting bail to accused nos. 2, 5  

and 7 to 10.  Special Leave Petition (R)…. CRLMP No. 19162 of 2012 was  

filed for assailing the order of the High Court in granting bail to accused  

nos. 12 to 15, and Special Leave Petition (R)…. CRLMP No. 19175 of  

2012 was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh assailing the action of the  

High Court in granting bail to accused no. 3.   

14. Leave has already been granted in all the said special leave  

petitions.  Since all the matters have been filed as against the common  

order passed by the High Court dated 25.4.2012, and since the factual  

controversy is also the same; all the matters shall be disposed of by the  

instant common order.  In passing the instant order, pleadings in Special  

Leave (Crl.) Nos. 4409-4410 of 2012 have been relied upon.

15. It is not necessary for us to delineate the factual position all over  

again.  All relevant facts have already been noticed in the foregoing  

9

Page 10

paragraphs.  From the sequence of facts narrated, it is apparent that  

accused nos. 1, 6 and 11 are the main accused, as they are alleged to  

have determined the course of events of the incident dated 30.4.2011,  

which is subject matter of the complaint in First Information Report no. 135  

of 2011 registered at Police Station Chandrayangutta.  The other accused  

had their own individual roles.  Prima facie, the roles attributed to the  

respective accused, as have been depicted in the video clipping recorded  

by the listed witness no. 22 Shri Shaik Salem, cannot be overlooked.  

Insofar as the aforesaid video clipping is concerned, reference may be  

made to the following observations recorded in the chargesheet dated  

30.6.2011 filed with reference to the allegations contained in First  

Information Report no. 135 of 2011 registered at Police Station  

Chandrayangutta:-

“The video clipping recorded by LW-22 Shaik Salem shows the  presence of the accused at the scene i.e. A-2 with a butcher’s knife,  A-4 Ibrahim stabbing Akbar with dagger, A-3 Abdullah struggling to  release his weapon from the hands of LW-12 MLA Balala with the  support of accused A-7 and A-14.  A-5 Awad Bin Awad Younus Yafai  carrying a cricket bat and racing to give a blow.  The video also  shows the severely injured Akbaruddin being shifted into Gypsy by  LW-1 Mansoor Awalgi, LW-2 Mohamood Awalgi, LW-11 Al Kaseri,  LW-28 Bawazeer and LW-13 Habeeb Osman, LW-14 Mustafa Baig,  LW-13 Samad Bin Abided, LW-19 MD Shareed, LW-8 Fayyaz Khan  are also found at the scene of offence in the videograph.”

It is therefore apparent, that the aforesaid video clipping notices the  

presence and participation of accused nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 14.  Therefore,  

as of now, prima facie, the participation of these accused in the occurrence  

1

Page 11

of 30.4.2011 cannot be seriously doubted, unless of course, during the  

course of evidence, the video clipping is shown to be doctored.   

16. The allegations, as they appear in the chargesheet dated 30.6.2011,  

leave no room for doubt, that the accusations are of a very serious nature.  

In broad day light, at 11.10 AM, an elected representative of the people,  

was attacked, without any fear of the repercussions.  The attacks resulted  

in serious injuries to him.  In the aforesaid attack, at least two of the  

accused were in possession of guns.  The MLA is alleged to have received  

gun shot injuries as well.  The allegations constitute an open challenge to  

civil society.  Persons involved in the alleged incident can not be accepted  

to remain disciplined if enlarged on bail.  It is likely that they would threaten  

witnesses, which would severely prejudice the outcome of the trial.  In fact,  

it has been noticed in the impugned order passed by the High Court that  

accused no. 8, after his release on bail, had picked up a quarrel with the  

MLA on 1.3.2012, and an entry of the aforesaid fact was recorded in the  

Station General Diary.  The aforesaid factual position has been noticed in  

paragraph 10 of the impugned order.  The same was emphatically  

highlighted by the learned Additional Solicitor General who represented the  

State of Andhra Pradesh.  It is also apparent, that if the trial concludes by  

returning a finding against the accused, they would be liable to be  

subjected to extremely severe punishment(s).  As of now, the period of  

1

Page 12

their custody is trivial in comparison to the punishment prescribed for the  

offences for which they are charged.

17. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that the main  

accused i.e., accused nos. 1, 6 and 11 are clearly disentitled to the benefit  

of bail.  Accordingly, Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition  

(Crl.) Nos. 4409-4410 of 2012 are hereby dismissed.

18. Insofar as the other cases filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh are  

concerned, a video clipping clearly demonstrates the presence of accused  

nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 14 at the place of occurrence.  As such, bail granted to  

accused nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 14 (since accused no. 4 whose presence was  

shown in the video clipping, has already died) by the High Court, is hereby  

set aside.  Taking into consideration the fact that the complainant, in the  

First Information Report, has involved a large number of members in one  

family, wherein the accused nos. 1, 2 and 6 are real brothers, and the other  

accused are their children, it would be just and appropriate to affirm the  

order passed by the High Court qua all the accused other than the main  

accused and the accused depicted in the video clipping.  Accordingly, the  

order of the High Court extending the benefit of bail to accused nos. 2, 3, 5,  

7 and 14 is hereby set aside.  The bail granted to the rest of the accused,  

by the High Court, is affirmed.

1

Page 13

19. Accordingly, Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition  

(Crl.) Nos. 4409-4410 of 2012 are dismissed.  And, Criminal Appeals  

arising out of Special Leave Petition (R)…… CRLMP Nos. 18203-18204 of  

2012, Special Leave Petition (R)……  CRLMP No. 19162 of 2012, and  

Special Leave Petition (R)….. CRLMP No. 19175 of 2012, are disposed of  

in the aforesaid terms.

20. Any observations or inferences drawn in the instant order shall not  

prejudice the rival parties in the ongoing criminal prosecution.

…………………………….J. (B.S. CHAUHAN)

…………………………….J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

New Delhi; October 5, 2012

.

.

1