Man banned from his hometown for 7 years — now SC says stay out till trial ends

He followed every rule for 7 years. The court still said: you can't go home. Gali Janardhan Reddy, a mining baron from Bellary, had done everything the Supreme Court asked of him in 2015 — stayed away from three districts, reported to the police, never missed a court date. But when he asked to come back, the court looked at the one thing he hadn't done: let the trial start.

When the CBI knocked

In 2009, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against Reddy for large-scale illegal mining in Bellary district of Karnataka and neighbouring areas of Andhra Pradesh. The charges: criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC — planning a crime with others), cheating (Section 420 IPC), theft (Section 379 IPC), criminal breach of trust by a public servant (Section 409 IPC), forgery (Section 468 IPC), receiving stolen property (Section 411 IPC), mischief (Section 427 IPC), criminal trespass (Section 447 IPC), and violations of the Indian Forest Act and the Mines and Minerals Act.

Reddy was arrested in September 2011. For four years, he applied for bail — and was rejected every time. The trial court said no. The High Court said no. The consistent reason: Reddy was too powerful. If released, he would influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, and derail the investigation.

The 2015 bail — with a catch

In January 2015, the Supreme Court finally granted him bail. But it came with a condition that would define the next seven years of his life. Condition (c) of the bail order barred Reddy from entering Bellary (Karnataka), Ananthapuram, and Cuddapah (Andhra Pradesh) — the districts where most prosecution witnesses lived. The logic: keep the accused away from the people who would testify against him.

Reddy accepted the condition. For over seven years, he stayed out of those districts. He complied with every other bail condition. He did not commit a fresh offence. He did not flee. By any measure, he was a model bail-recipient.

The application that changed nothing

In 2020, Reddy filed an application before the Supreme Court asking for condition (c) to be removed or modified. His argument was straightforward: he had followed the rules for seven years. He had not violated a single condition. The trial had not even started — and that delay was not his fault. Why should he be punished indefinitely for a crime he hadn't been convicted of?

The CBI opposed fiercely. Its argument: Reddy's power and influence had not diminished. He had, in the past, attempted to influence even judicial officers. The fear of witness tampering was not theoretical — it was demonstrated on record. And most witnesses still lived in those three districts. Letting Reddy return would be like letting a fox back into the henhouse.

Why the trial hadn't started — and whose fault it was

Here is where the court's focus shifted. The FIR was registered in December 2009. By October 2022 — nearly 13 years later — the trial had not even begun. The Supreme Court noted that the delay was largely attributable to "dilatory tactics" by the accused persons, including repeated discharge applications (requests to have the case thrown out before trial). Every time the trial was about to start, the accused would file another application, and the process would stall.

The bench — Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari — was blunt. "Any attempt to delay the trial of serious offences is to be dealt with iron hands," the court observed. The delay, the court said, eroded public faith in the justice system. If a powerful accused could keep a trial from starting for over a decade, what message did that send to ordinary citizens?

The court's reasoning: why compliance wasn't enough

The Supreme Court dismissed Reddy's application. Its reasoning had two prongs. First, the seriousness of the offences and Reddy's demonstrated ability to influence witnesses meant the bail condition had to stay until the trial concluded. Seven years of good behaviour did not erase the risk — especially when the trial hadn't even started. Second, the delay was not a reason to relax conditions; it was a reason to speed up the trial.

The court directed the trial court to conduct day-to-day proceedings starting November 9, 2022, and to conclude the trial within six months. The prosecution was told to examine witnesses from the restricted districts first. All accused were directed to cooperate. Reddy was given a temporary pass: he could stay in Bellary until November 6, 2022, for a family reason. After that, he had to leave and stay out until the trial ended.

What this means for every accused on bail

For practitioners, this judgment delivers a clear message. Bail conditions tied to witness protection are not time-bound. They last as long as the risk lasts — and the risk lasts until the trial ends. Compliance with conditions is expected, not rewarded. The only way to get such a condition removed is to let the trial conclude, not to argue that you have been a model accused.

The judgment also puts trial courts on notice. If a serious case has been pending for over a decade without trial starting, the higher courts will intervene. Day-to-day trials with fixed deadlines are now the remedy for delay — not relaxation of bail conditions.

THE PLAY: If you are an accused in a serious case where bail conditions restrict your movement to protect witnesses, do not expect those conditions to be relaxed until the trial ends — no matter how long you have complied.

The court ended where it began: with a powerful man who followed every rule, but could not go home until the trial was done.