1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No: CRL. A. No.1304 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
No. DATE ORDER NOTE
17 01.12.2022
CPK, J & BVLNC,J I.A. No. 1 of 2021 Tr. to I/O.
The Petitioner/Appellant, who is Accused No.1 filed the present application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.1304 of 2017. Originally, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 along with Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were tried in Special Sessions Case No. 38 of 2015 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Cases-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting Accused Nos. 2 and 3, convicted Petitioner/Accused No.1 for the offences 2 punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. He was also found guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences and in default of payment of fine, shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for each offence. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The only ground, on which, the present application, seeking bail, came to be filed is that, the Petitioner has completed 05 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.1 he is entitled for bail.
1 [2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P). 3 The fact that the Petitioner herein has completed 05 years of actual sentence after his 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 4 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.
The fact that the case of the Petitioner do not fall within any of the exceptions laid down in the said Judgment, is also not in dispute. It is not a case where the Petitioner is alleged to have committed offence relating to rape coupled with murder of minor children dacoity, murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom etc. 5 While acquitting A2 and A3, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
Since, the case of the Petitioner falls within the parameters laid down in Batchu Rangarao & others case and as the judgment of the Division Bench attained finality, the Petitioner shall be released on bail on certain terms and conditions.
Accordingly, the interlocutory application is allowed and the execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 Special Sessions Case No. 38 of 2015, dated 17.10.2017, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Cases-
Cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, is suspended, pending disposal of the appeal and the
Petitioner/Accused No. 1 shall be enlarged on bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs., 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand 6 Only] with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Ananthapuramu. However, the Petitioner/Accused 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 he shall be present before the Court at the time of hearing of this appeal.
It is needless to mention that if the Petitioner 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.
Accordingly, the I.A. is ordered.
_______ CPK,J _________ BVLNC,J dmr