Gandikota Manikanta vs The State Of A.P.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2572 AP

            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.511 of 2016

                                          PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                                     ORDER

No           DATE
                                                                                       Transferr
6.       24.7.2021         CPK, J & BKM, J                                             -ed to I/O
                                                                                       folder
                                                                                       before
                                                I.A.No.1 of 2021                       correction
                                                                                             AMD

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, filed the present application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

The petitioner/accused was tried in Sessions Case No.309 of 2015 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. (two counts).

The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. (first count) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months; and he was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. (second count) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P).

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 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.

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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur District. However, the petitioner/accused shall report before the concerned Police Station once in a month 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

___________ BKM, J Note:-

Furnish C.C. today.

B/O AMD