Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Duddu Lazar, Prakasam Dt 9 Otrs., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 2 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE
Transferr
5. 2.9.2021 CPK, J & BKM, J -ed to I/O
folder
before
I.A.No.1 of 2021 correction
in
Crl.A.No.728 of 2016 AMD
The petitioners, who are A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 &
A-12, filed the present application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking bail, pending disposal of
the Criminal Appeal.
The petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 & A-12
was tried in Sessions Case No.90 of 2012 on the
file of the learned VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur for the
offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 and
302 read with 149 I.P.C.
The learned Sessions Judge convicted the
petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 & A-12 for the
offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 and
302 read with 149 I.P.C. and accordingly,
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life
and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month each for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 149
I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-
each and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month each for
the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C.,
and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-
each and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month each for
the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.
The only ground on which the present
application seeking bail came to be filed is that
the petitioners have 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, they would be entitled
for bail.
The fact that the petitioners have completed
5 years of actual sentence after their 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
2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P).
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 A-11
was already granted bail and the case of the
petitioners stands on the same footing; that the
case of the petitioners does not fall within any of
the exceptions laid down in the said judgment;
that there will not be any difficulty in securing
their presence in case of conviction and that the
conduct of the petitioners in the jail is
satisfactory.
It is not a case where the petitioners are
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 petitioners falls within
the parameters laid down in Batchu Rangarao
& others case 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 Application
is allowed and the petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4
& A-12 shall be enlarged on bail on their
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 Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddaluru,
Prakasam District. However, the petitioners/A-1,
A-2, A-3, A-4 & A-12 shall report before the
concerned Police Station once in a month i.e.,
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.
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.
___________
CPK, J
___________
BKM, J
Note:-
Furnish C.C. today.
B/O
AMD
