Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nalla Ganesh Ganapathi A1, Srikakulam ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 7 January, 2022
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND So, elas a neat THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO Ree crt IA No. 1 OF 2021 IN CRLA NO: 23 OF 2017 Between: 1. Nalla Ganesh @ Ganapathi, son of Appalanaidu, aged about 25 years, R/o. Nemalam Therlam Mandalam, Vizianagaram district, Now r/o Dolapeta Village, Rajam Mandalam, Srikakulam District.(A-1) 2. Sasapu Kishna Rao@ Jarnmayyi @ Jamminaidu, son of Dalinaidu, age 23 years, Ponugutivalasa village, Santhakaviti Mandalam, Srikakulam District. (A-2) ...Petitioners/Accused (Petitioner in CRLA 23 OF 2017 on the file of High Court) AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati ...Respondent/Complainant (Respondent in-do-) of | Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam and to release the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of CRLA No. 23 of 2017, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memo of grounds filed in Cri.A., and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A RAVI SHANKAR Advocate for the Appellants, and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following ORDER:
The petitioners, who are A.1 and A.2 in Cr.No.6/2010 of G.Sigadam Police Station, filed the present application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973( Cr.P.C.), seeking bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.
The petitioners/A.1 and A.2 were tried in Sessions Case No.162 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.).
Vide judgment, dated 05.12.2016, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 L.P.C. convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 LP.C and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 302 LP.C. The only ground on which the present application seeking bail came to be filed is that the petitioners have completed 5 years of actual sentence after conviction by the trial Court and in view of the Judgment in Batchu Rangarao & others v. State of A.P. (2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P).], they would be entitled for bail.
The fact that the petitioners have completed 5 years of actual sentence after their conviction is not in dispute. The Division Bench of this Court in Batchu Rangarao & others supra, held as under:
"Qn considering their valuable suggestions and after a thorough evaluation of the relevant factors, we are inclined to indicate broad criteria on which the applications for grant of bail pending the Criminal Appeals filed against the conviction for the offences, including the one under Section-302 IPC, and sentencing of the appellants to life among other allied sentences, are to be considered. Accordingly, we evolve the following criteria:
(D) A person who is convicted for life and whose appeal is pending before this Court is entitled to apply for bail after he has undergone a minimum of five years imprisonment following his conviction;
(2) Grant of bail in favour of persons falling in (I) supra shall be subject to his good conduct in the jail, as reported by the respective Jail Superintendents; (3) In the following categories of cases, the convicts will not be entitled to be released on bail, despite their satisfying the criteria in (1) and (2) supra:
The offences relating to rape coupled with murder of minor children, dacoity, murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom, killing of the public servants, the offences falling under the National Security Act and the offences pertaining to narcotic drugs. (4) While granting bail, the two following conditions apart from usual conditions have to be imposed, viz., (1) the appellants on bail must be present before the Court at the time of hearing of the Criminal Appeals; and (2) they must report in the respective Police Stations once in a month during the bail period.
This broad criteria cannot be understood as invariable principles and the Bench hearing the bail applications may exercise its discretion either for granting or rejecting 'the bail based on the facts of each case. Needless to observe that grant of bail based on these principles shall, however, be subject to the provisions of Section-389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
Learned Public Prosecutor states that the case of the petitioners does not fall within any of the exceptions laid down in the said judgment and the conduct of the petitioners in the jail is satisfactory.
It is not a case where the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences relating to rape coupled with murder of minor children, dacoity, murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom etc. Skm Since the case of the petitioners falls within the parameters laid down in the above said judgment and as the judgment of the Division Bench attained finality, the petitioners shall be released on bail on certain terms and conditions.
Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is allowed and the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, Srikakulam District. However, the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 shall report before the concerned Police Station once in a month between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. till disposal of the appeal and they shall be present before the Court at the time of hearing of this appeal.
It is needless to mention that if the petitioners failed to appear before the Court at the time of hearing the appeal or violated the conditions imposed supra, liberty is given to the learned Public Prosecutor to take steps accordingly.
Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ;
ae oes:
ITTRUE COPY// For . SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The! Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam
2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, Srikakulam District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam
4. The Station House Officer, Rajam Police Station, Srikakulam District
5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati (OUT)
6. One CC to SRI. A RAVI SHANKAR Advocate [OPUC]
7. One spare copy HIGH COURT CPK,J & DR.KMR,J DATED:07/01/2022 ORDER IA. no. 1 OF 2021 IN CRLA.No.23 of 2017 DIRECTION 6 i) caw C wr :
o