Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tarugu Peddi Reddy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl. Pp ... on 26 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1062 OF 2011
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
ORDER
No DATE NOTE
19. 26.04.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J
And
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
I.A.No.1 of 2020
Heard Mr. P. Aditya Harsha Vardhan,
learned counsel, representing M/s. Pillix Law
Firm, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant
/accused no.11 in Interlocutory Application No.1
of 2020 and Mr. A. Chennakeshavulu, learned
Special Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of
Investigation, for the State.
2. The prayer in the present Interlocutory
Application is for suspension of sentence and
release on bail of the applicant, who has been
convicted for the charge under Section 120-B r/w
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and
to pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month, by judgment
dated 25.08.2011 in Sessions Case No.178 of
2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Anantapur.
3. The incident relates to an occurrence,
where the then sitting M.L.A. along with two
other persons were gun down in the party office
on 24.01.2005. The applicant is the accused in
the larger conspiracy as the role assigned to him
in the crime is that he had taken the accused
no.4 on a hired car from Anantapur to Mahaboob
Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that in the present case, the applicant
has good chances of acquittal for the Court below
has relied on tenuous circumstantial evidence to
connect him to the crime which will not stand
the test of law and in fact benefit of doubt is
required to be given to him.
5. It was submitted that except for P.Ws.1,
45 and 82, nobody has indicated any connection
of the applicant to the crime and the only
allegation is that after the crime, the applicant
had arranged for a vehicle for the accused no.4,
who is said to have been one of the killers, to go
from Anantapur to Mahaboob Nagar. Thus, it
was submitted that the conviction of the
applicant on the ground that he was part of the
conspiracy is not made out for the reason that
there was no prior meeting of mind or that he
was ever party to the planning or execution of the
murder and, at best, he had helped one of the
culprits to go from Anantapur to Mahaboob
Nagar.
6. Learned counsel submitted that with
regard to accused no.7-Vadde Srinivasulu @
Seena, the Court in I.A.No.6 of 2021 in Criminal
Appeal No.1199 of 2011, by order dated
01.04.2022, has suspended the sentence against
him and granted him bail. It was submitted that
the applicant herein is in custody since more
than 15 years. It was contended that accused
no.7, who has been granted bail, was also in
custody for 16 years, though having a more
direct role in the crime inasmuch as he had
hurled bombs outside the office to scare away the
people and to facilitate the escape of the killers.
Learned counsel submitted that there is no
criminal antecedent of the applicant and there is
no other evidence to connect him to the crime.
7. Learned counsel for the C.B.I submitted
that the applicant facilitating the escape of one of
the killers clearly shows that he was part of the
conspiracy. However, he did not controvert that
except for P.Ws.1, 45 and 82, there are no other
witnesses against him and that too the only
allegation is that he had arranged for a car for
taking the accused no.4 from Anantapur to
Mahaboob Nagar and no other allegation has
been made against him. He submitted that he
has also filed counter affidavit.
8. From the counter affidavit, it transpires
that the fact of the applicant not having any
criminal antecedent is not controverted and
further no stand has been taken with regard to
there being any issues, if the applicant is
released on bail.
9. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, the sentence
against the applicant/appellant/accused no.11
in the present case is suspended and he is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur. By way of
caution, the Court would require the applicant to
report before the Station House Officer concerned
on every Monday at 11.00 a.m., which shall be
duly recorded. Further, any deviant behavior or
commission or involvement in any offence or
there being any threat issued by him, if brought
to the notice of the Court, may be a ground for
cancellation of his bail.
10. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2020 stands
disposed of.
_________________________________
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)
_____________________________________
(TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J)
C.C by 27.04.2022
MP
