Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Janni Seetayya, Vizianagaram Dist. 3 ... vs P.P., Hyd on 27 September, 2021
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, B Krishna Mohan
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.739 of 2016
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE
5. 27.09.2021 CPK, J & BKM, J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
Heard Sri D.Poornachandra Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Veerabhadra Rao Koppisetti, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. Perused the record.
The petitioners, along with other accused, were tried in Sessions Case No.50 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram, for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 332 read with 149 IPC, 307 read with 149 IPC and 302 read with 149 IPC.
By the judgment dated 09.06.2016, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, having found the petitioners/A.2, A3 & A9, along with A1, guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 332 read with 149 IPC, 307 read with 149 IPC and 302 read with 149 IPC, convicted them for the said offences and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 148 & 332 read with 149 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for life each and pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year each, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 IPC.
It is stated that the petitioners have been in jail since 09.06.2016. It also appears that the paper book is not yet made ready for hearing of the appeal.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the conduct of the petitioners in jail is satisfactory and that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the exceptions carved out in Batchu Rangarao & others v. State of A.P.1.
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:
"On 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:
(1) 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 (1) 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."
It is not a case where the petitioners are alleged to have committed offence relating to rape coupled with 1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P).
murder of minor children, dacoity, murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom etc. Since the case of the petitioners falls within the parameters laid down in Batchu Rangarao & others case 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/A2,A3 & A9 shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) each with two local sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. However, the petitioners/A1 to A3 & A9 shall report before the concerned Police Station once in a month i.e., on last Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM till disposal of the appeal and they shall be present before the Court or appear virtually 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.
___________ CPK, J ___________ BKM, J Vjl