Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Between vs (Appellant In Crl.A.No. ... on 31 December, 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
: PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
I.A.No. 2 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1280 of 2016

I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1295 of 2016
&
1.A.No. 1 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1312 of 2016

 

l.A.No. 2 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1280 of 2016 :-
Between:-
Varshachalam Dileep Kumar @ Dileep, S/o. Penchalaiah.

..Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No.1
(Appellant in Crl.A.No. 1280/2016
on the file of the High Court)
AND
The State of Andhra rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., at Amaravati.

..Respondent

(Respondent in-do-)

Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Appeal and affidavit filed in support of the present application, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence passed in $.C.No. 277 of 2013 on the file of the | Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore District and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal No. 1280 of 2016 on the file of the High Court.

|.A.No. 1 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1295 of 2016 :- Between :-

Uppu Yuva Teja, S/o. Madhusudhan Babu ..Petitioner/Appellant/Accused (Appellant in Crl.A.No. 1295/2016 on the file of the High Court) AND The State of Andhra rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati.

..Respondent (Respondent in-do-)

Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Appeal and affidavit filed in support of the present application, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Petitioner in S.C.No. 277/2013, dated 14.12.2016, on the file of the Court of | Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore and direct to release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2016 on the file of the High Court.

Contd..2...

|.A.No. 1 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1312 of 2016 :- Between :-

Chandragiri Ashok, S/o. Siva Prasad Reddy ..Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No.2 (Appellant in Crl.A.No. 1392/2016 on the file of the High Court) AND The State of Andhra rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati.

..Respondent (Respondent in-do-)

Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Appeal and affidavit filed in support of the present application, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed upon the Petitioner/appellant in $.C.No. 277/2013 by Judgment dt. 14.12.2016 on the file of the Court of the | Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore and release the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal No. 1312 of 2016 on the file of the High Court.

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in the Criminal Appeals and earlier orders of High Court made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner in |.A.No.2 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1280 of 2016 and Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner |.A.No. 1 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1295 of 2016 and Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate for petitioner in |.A.No. 1 of 2021 in Crl.A.No. 1312 of 2016 and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent/State in all Cri. Petitions, the Court made the following COMMON ORDER :-

"The petitioner in I.A.No. 2 of 2021 IN Crl.A.No.1280 of 2016, is A.1, petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.1295 of 2016 is A.3 and petitioner in l.a.No.1 of 2021 in CLA.No.1312 of 2016 is A.2, in Sessions Case No.277 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. They filed the respective applications under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking bail, pending disposal of the respective Criminal Appeals.

Vide Judgment, dated 14.12.2016, petitioners/A.1 and A.3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each, and petitioner/A.2 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C.

The only ground on which the present applications seeking bail came to be filed is that the petitioners have completed 5 years of actual sentence from the date of filing the respective appeals, 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.

Contd..3... -

- 3-

The fact that the petitioners have completed 5 years of actual sentence from the date of filing the respective appeals, 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:

(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."

Learned Public Prosecutor states that the cases of the petitioners do 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 petitioners are alleged to have committed offences relating to rape coupled with murder of minor children, dacoity, murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom etc.

Since the cases of the petitioners fall 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 Applications are allowed and the petitioners/A.1, A.3 and A.2 shall be enlarged on bail on each of them 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 V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore. However, the petitioners 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.

Contd....4...

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."

adha Re dy TREGIS

Sd/- Ie Suryan ASSISTAN

// TRUE COPY // SECTIO

1.The | Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

2.The V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

3.The Inspector of Police, South Circle, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore.

5.Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,(OUT)

6.One CC to Sri T. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)

7.One CC to Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)

8.One CC to V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, AdvocteOPUC)

9.Two spare copies.