A.Chakradhar, Chittoor Dist. vs P.P., Hyd
2021 Latest Caselaw 3793 AP

                    HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.848 of 2016

                                           PROCEEDING SHEET

    Sl.
                                                        ORDER

    No          DATE

17.         27.09.2021       CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                   I.A.No.1 of 2021

Heard both the sides. Perused the record.

The petitioner/A1, along with A2, was tried in Sessions Case No.423 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B & 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

By the judgment dated 26.08.2016, the learned Sessions Judge, having found the petitioner/A1 guilty for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act, convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A IPC; imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 3 of D.P Act; and rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 4 of D.P. Act.

It is stated that the petitioner has been in jail since 26.08.2016.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the exceptions carved out in Batchu Rangarao & others v. State of A.P.1. He placed on record a copy of the instructions received from the jail authorities, which indicate that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory and that the

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

petitioner can be secured in case if he is convicted at a later point of time.

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."

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 petitioner shall be released on bail on certain terms and conditions.

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is allowed and the petitioner/A1 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner. However, the petitioner/A1 shall report before the concerned Police Station once in a month i.e., on last Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM till disposal of the appeal and he shall be present before the Court or appear virtually 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 Vjl