Read Time: 12 minutes

The Supreme Court today modified the bail condition of mining baron, Gali Janardhan Reddy, which restrained him from visiting his hometown in the district of Bellary in Karnataka. The Court allowed him to visit his hometown on the condition that he shall intimate the Superintendent of Police while leaving the district. The court has also granted liberty to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) approach it, if other bail conditions are violated.

The matter is listed for further hearing in November.

A division bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, while considering that the petitioner has not been in violation of bail conditions on earlier occasions and that the trial has not commenced since the past 6 years, modified the restraining bail condition.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Ms. Madhavi Divan, appeared for the CBI whereas Senior Advocate (s) Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar appeared for the petitioner-accused.

It was contended by the CBI that dilution of the bail condition would impose a serious threat to the witnesses, 47 of whom also reside in Bellary, and further the accused was also involved in the Judges Bribery Case and has past records of intervening in the judicial process by unethical means.

“A man who is involved in bribing the Judges, how can he be trusted with the witnesses - He will either threaten them or bribe them too - turning them hostile. This has a very crucial bearing on the case. The question today is, are there any changed circumstances - In our respectful submission there is no changed circumstances in his favour. How many times can one keep invoking the jurisdiction of the Court when there is nothing in his favour,” the ASG argued emphasizing that the bail conditions are “heart and soul” of the 2015 order and must not be diluted.

The next limb of the argument rested on delay attributable to the accused – in the form of repeated discharge applications and quashing petitions.

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the subject matter of trial is essentially related to boundary dispute/demarcation of mining areas (now settled by the Apex Court) and not witness protection, as repeatedly emphasized by the ASG.

It was emphasized that Reddy on all prior occasions had complied with bail conditions as imposed and there is no reason why when the trial itself seems in abeyance, should he be restricted from visiting his hometown. Responding to allegations on delay, Rohatgi reverted saying that the CBI has been filing repeated charge-sheets prolonging the course of trial and the discharge applications filed by co-accused persons in the matter, cannot tie him to the allegation of delay.

“It is a mountain out of a molehill case - enough damage has been done to my Article 21 because of them. I have been in Jail for 4 years. This is not procedure established by law that you will take 12 years to commence a Trial. I have meticulously complied with the conditions earlier. The Ghost of the past cannot be raised again and again,” contended Rohatgi for Reddy.

On the documents relied by CBI, Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar submitted that there must be some proximity of offences alleged and the present day –

“The proximity of threats made against me, relates to year 2012 or before 2015 when the bail was granted - not one proximity of 2019, 2020, 2021 - In criminal matters your lordships go by proximity of threat.”

On the argument of no changed circumstance in favour of the petitioner, it was added,

 “The changed circumstance is that in the last 6 years, no trial has taken place.”

Earlier Developments

On Aug 13, Court had framed the following issues on which the CBI was to respond:

1. Alteration of condition and its potential effect on the witnesses

2. Power and influential position of the petitioner

3. Delay at the behest of petitioner by filing repetitive discharge applications

4. Modification of bail condition, which may affect trial and prosecution

5. Liberty enjoyed by the petitioner

It was the submission of the ASG that the bail granted to the petitioner was conditional and they cannot now cherry pick as to which condition they want to adhere to and which they do not.

The ASG also submitted that witnesses have been threatened, given to the influential position of the petitioner accused - as also the judges who have previously dealt in the matter.

Counsel for the petitioner responded that given to the fact that no charges have been framed yet and the trial is not likely to start anytime soon, restraining the petitioner from visiting Bellary – as a part of the bail conditions, was harsh and unwarranted.

“It is alleged by the CBI that he was mining beyond the lease area. A dispute about the boundary between the two States (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh) was pending before the Supreme Court. He was arrested in 2011, bailed by the Supreme Court in 2015. He has been allowed to visit Bellary on previous instances and not violated any conditions. Considering the Trial has not progressed, I submit that this condition of not visiting home is very harsh,” Mr. Rohatgi argued.

Brief Background

On April 5, A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Subhash Reddy, had reserved orders in a similar plea by the petitioner.

Reddy and his brother-in-law, B V Srinivas Reddy, MD, Obalapuram Mining Company (OMC), were arrested by CBI on Sep 5, 2011 from Bellary and brought to Hyderabad.

The company is accused of changing mining lease boundaries and indulging in illegal mining in the Bellary Reserve Forest area, spread over Bellary in Karnataka and Anantpura district of Andhra Pradesh.

Case Title: Gali Janardhan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Edited by Shreya Agarwal