Younus Bin Omer Yafai @ Younus Bhai& Ors vs State Of A.P

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 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.

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.

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 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:-

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.”

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.

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.

October 5, 2012 .