E SANJEEVA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is witness No.11 in Crime No.168/2011 of Chandanagar Police Station of Cyberabad relating to offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C and Sections 25 of the Indian Arms Act. He seeks cancellation of bail granted by this Court to the 2nd respondent/3rd accused in Crl.P.No.4843 of 2011 by order dated 27.06.2011.

(2.) THE offence pertains to ghastly murder of a practising advocate by name S.Ashok Reddy which took place on 26.03.2011. At about 10.55 A.M on that day when the deceased was going into Mandal Revenue Office, Serilingampalli mandal, the assailants attacked him by throwing chilli powder on his face and stabbing him with knives. As many as 33 stab injuries were inflicted on body of the deceased. THE deceased died on the spot. As on today, the police completed investigation and filed charge sheet before the Magistrate. It is alleged by the prosecution that six of the accused persons stabbed the deceased while four of the accused persons guarded the scene of offence and one accused person was driving the motor vehicle for taking all the accused to the scene and returning from the scene after commission of the offence. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent/A-3 was one of the accused persons who attacked and stabbed the deceased with knife. According to the prosecution, the offence is an offshoot of civil litigation between the petitioner/witness No.11 and the 5th accused for a land located in Nanakramguda of Cyberabad which is stated to be a prime locality, and which civil litigation was won by the petitioner in the Supreme Court of India; and the deceased was going to Mandal Revenue Office, Serilingampalli Mandal for the purpose of mutation of name of the petitioner/witness No.11 in revenue records for the disputed land which has been in possession of the accused. THE petitioner/A-3 was in judicial custody since 17.04.2011. He was ordered to be released on bail on 27.06.2011.

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioners counsel that certain observations of this Court in the bail order dated 27.06.2011 are not factually correct and that when specific overt acts were attributed to the 2nd respondent/A-3 against the deceased with knife, this Court should not have been granted bail to the 2nd respondent in this ghastly case. In my opinion this submission of the petitioners counsel is not available before this Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C, as entertaining of this contention would amount to entertaining a review petition on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the earlier order. IT is for the aggrieved party to take the matter to higher Court i.e., the Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and urge therein this ground for setting aside the order granting bail to the 2nd respondent/A-3. In Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee V. State of W.B((2004)11 Supreme Court Cases 165)the Supreme Court did not approve the approach of considering a petition under Section 482 and 439(2) Cr.P.C as if it was an appeal against conviction by giving findings on factual issues.