Keesari Srinivasa Reddy Srinu, ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 5583 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.1294 of 2016
                              PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                          ORDER

No DATE

10. 30.12.2021 CPK, J & Dr.KMR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021

The petitioner, who is Accused in Crime No.54 of 2013 of Konakanamitla Police Station, Prakasam District, 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 petitioner/accused was tried in Sessions Case No.179 of 2014 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.).

Vide judgment, dated 14.12.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 302 of I.P.C and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. Further, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P.C The only ground on which the present application seeking bail came to be filed is that the petitioner has 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.1, he would be entitled for bail.

The fact that the petitioner has completed 5 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 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

2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P). 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 petitioner does not fall within any of the exceptions laid down in the said judgment and the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory.

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.

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 petitioner/accused shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, Prakasam District. 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.

________ CPK, J

___________ Dr.KMR,J Note: Issue CC tomorrow (B/o) ARR