THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7414 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is A5 in Crime No.990 of 2008 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The accusation made against the petitioner is that he along with other accused laid conspiracy to do away the life of Rajeev Sisodia and in pursuance of the conspiracy Rajeev Sisodia came to be killed. The wife of the deceased filed application seeking her impleadment as one of the respondents in Crl.M.P.No.7400 of 2009 and it has been allowed on this day by a separate order. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the First Respondent/State and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Police completed investigation and filed charge-sheet and therefore further detention of the petitioner is not warranted. A further submission has been made that no specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner in doing away the life of the deceased Rajeev Sisodia, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the application on the ground that the participation of the petitioner in the conspiracy to do away the life of the deceased has been spoken out by the witnesses examined during the investigation and therefore the petitioner does not deserve for bail at this stage. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that various calls have been made by the petitioner to A1, who is main architect of the commission of the offence and that itself is sufficient to establish the charge of conspiracy. A further submission has been made that if the petitioner is admitted to bail, there is every likelihood of harm being caused to the second respondent, who is wife of the deceased. It appears Sessions Case No.259 of 2009 is pending at the stage of enquiry and charges are yet to be framed. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted bail at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his application after charges are framed in the Sessions Case. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 23rd September, 2009. skmr