Dasari Gowri Shankar Chinnodu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1728 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.3045 of 2018

                               PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                         OFFICE
                                           ORDER

No      DATE                                                                 NOTE
08.   11.04.2022
                   SRK, J

                                      I.A.No.2 of 2018

                      Heard      the     learned    counsel   for     the

petitioner/appellant and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

                      For       the      reasons     stated   in      the
                   accompanying affidavit,         sufficient cause    is

shown. Delay is condoned. Petition is ordered.

I.A.No.1 of 2021

The petitioner is A.1 in Sessions Case No.192 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur. Vide judgment dated 16.05.2016, he was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 (2) (I) and 376D IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 376D IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has not imposed any sentence for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (I) IPC holding that the sentences imposed for the offence punishable under Section 376D IPC would meet the mandate of law.

The only ground on which the present application seeking bail came to be filed is that the petitioner has 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, he would be entitled for bail.

The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that since the conviction is for the offence of rape, the request of the petitioner for applying the ratio laid down in Batchu Rangarao's case cannot be applied.

This Court perused the record. On the earlier occasion, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to produce the nominal roll of the petitioner/appellant and to enquire with regard to his antecedents. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted nominal roll of the petitioner/appellant. A perusal of the same would go to show that the accused has undergone actual sentence, with remand period, for 6 years 6 months and 18 days and the total sentence undergone by him including remand and remission as on 30.12.2021 is 8 years two months and 4 days.

This Court feels that the appeal may not come up for hearing in the near future for the reason that the Criminal Appeal is of the year 2018. Since the petitioner/appellant has already undergone more than 6 years' of sentence of imprisonment, ends of justice would be met if he is released on bail, on certain conditions.

2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P). Accordingly, the petition is ordered, and the petitioner/appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Guntur. The petitioner/ appellant shall report before the police station concerned once on a month till disposal of the present Criminal Appeal. The Criminal Appeal shall be proceeded with without seeking adjournments by the parties.

Crl.A.No.3045 of 2018 Post after summer vacation, 2022.

_____________ SRK, J PGT/DRK