Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T.Satyanarayana Rao, Guntur Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 8 October, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.CRLA.No.974 of 2016
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
5. 08-10-2021 CPK, J & BKM, J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
The petitioner, who is accused in Sessions
Case No.399 of 2015, 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/accused was tried in Sessions
Case No.399 of 2015 on the file of XII Additional
Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District,
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.).
Vide its judgment, dated 09.05.2016, the
learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 302
IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
month.
The averments of the affidavit filed in support
of the application would show that the petitioner
has completed the period of five years of actual
sentence after his conviction by the trial Court
and he was granted a parole on 16.08.2021 till
17.09.2021. The petitioner avers that he is
suffering with heart problem as out of 4 valves, 3
values are blocked and doctor has advised him
to undergo heart surgery immediately. To
substantiate the same, the petitioner filed copies
of medical reports. He also relies on the
Judgment rendered by this court in Batchu
Rangarao and others v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P)),
and prays for his release on bail.
The fact that the petitioner has completed the
period of five years of actual sentence after his
conviction is not in dispute. In fact, as stated
earlier, the petitioner was granted a parole. 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/accused shall be
enlarged on bail on his executing a personal
bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand
only) with two local sureties for a like sum each
to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet, Guntur
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.
_____________________
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
____________________
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J
Ksn
