B.Shiva Kumar, Hyderabad Anr., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4007 AP

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.CRLA.No.912 of 2016

PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE

16. 08-10-2021 CPK, J & BKM, J

I.A.No.2 of 2021

The petitioner, who is A.2 in Sessions Case No.229 of 2011, filed the present application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to release him on bail, pending disposal of Criminal Appeal.

The petitioner/A.2 was tried along with accused in Sessions Case No.229 of 2011 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundravaram, for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 201, 365, 120B, 379, 109 r/w149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.).

Vide its judgment, dated 19.08.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner/A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months; He also convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC; He further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months, for the offences

punishable under Section 364 & 120B IPC.

The only ground on which the present application seeking bail came to be filed is that the petitioner has completed the period of five years of actual sentence after conviction by the trial Court and in view of Judgment rendered in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P)), he would be entitled for bail.

The fact that the petitioner has completed the period of five years of actual sentence after his conviction is not in dispute. The Division Bench of this Court in Batchu Rangarao and 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 and the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory.

It is not a case where the petitioner/accused 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 the above said judgment 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/A.2 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two local sureties for a like sum each to the

satisfaction of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. However, the petitioner/A.2 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.

_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

____________________ B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J

I.A.No.3 of 2021

The petitioner, who is A.1 in Sessions Case No.229 of 2011, filed the present application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to release him on bail, pending disposal of Criminal Appeal.

The petitioner/A.1 was tried along with other accused in Sessions Case No.229 of 2011 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundravaram, for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 201, 365, 120B, 379, 109 r/w149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.).

Vide its judgment, dated 19.08.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner/A.1 for the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months; He also convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC; He further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months, for the offences punishable under Section 364 & 120B IPC.

The only ground on which the present application seeking bail came to be filed is that the petitioner has completed the period of five years of actual sentence after conviction by the trial Court and in view of Judgment rendered in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P)), he would be entitled for bail.

The fact that the petitioner has completed the period of five years of actual sentence after his conviction is not in dispute. The Division Bench of this Court in Batchu Rangarao and 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 and the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory.

It is not a case where the petitioner/A.1 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 the above said judgment 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/A.1 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. However, the petitioner/A.1 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.

_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

____________________ B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J Ksn