Gundla Vengalaiah, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2617 AP

  
 
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THE VWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY, '

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

_ : PRESENT: :

THE HONOURABLE SHT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGAN

IA No, 1 OF 2021
IN ee
CRLA NO: 156 OF 2021
Between:

Gundla Vengalaiah, S/o late Yogaiah, Aged about 32 years, Caste by Gouda ,Occ
Coolie N/o Pragallapadu Village, R/o Badveedu Village of Peddaraveedu Mandal,

Prakasam District . /
..Petitioner/Appellant

AND .
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at
Amaravathi .
...Respondent/Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C VASUNDHARA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated
in the mernorandum of grounds filed in support of the Cri A, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence Dated 01-06-2020 Judgment passed
in SC.No.219 of 2018 on the file of the Vi Additional District and Sessions Judge
.Prakasam at Markapur and releese the petitioner on bail, pending disposai of
CRLA No. 156 of 2021, on the file of the High Court. -

The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show
cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following
order.(The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case).
The Court made the following
ORDER

"This petition is filed by the accused seeking suspension of sentence imposed in judgment dated 01.06.2020 passed in $.C.No.219 of 2018 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam, Markapur and to enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the criminal appeal.

Heard Smt. C.Vasundhara Reddy, iearned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learne Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent- state.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit: accused was convicted under Section 255{ii) Cr.P.C and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmen for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. .

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except circumstaitial evidence there is no direct evidence to show that the petitioner has committed the offence as alleged and the Court below, basing on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 8 who have not witnessed the incident, had convicted the petitioner. She submits that the court below failed to appreciate that there are no marks on the body which would suggest viclence or struggle except single hack injury, and

erred in imposing sentence. The petitioner who is innocent is languishing in jail. Hence, his case may be considered for grant of bail.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner in the judgment, dated 01.06.2020 passed in $.C.No.219 of 2018 by. the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam, Markapur, alone is suspended pending the criminal appeal. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur,

Prakasam District." '8p '

ie AVIJAYA BABU

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ay a

w¢

Oo

ae

HTRUE COPY? Poy For SECTION OFFICER

To, "4. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, Prakasam District. "2, The Vi Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam, Markapur.

3--One CC to Sri C Vasundhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. TwoCCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

5. One spare copy SP

HIGH COURT

LKJ

_ DATED: 26/07/2021

{*

ORDER IANo. 1 OF 2021

IN| CRLA NO: 156 OF 2021

INTERIM DIRECTION