1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No: CRL. A. No.1304 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
No. DATE ORDER NOTE
17 01.12.2022
CPK, J & BVLNC,J
I.A. No. 1 of 2021 Tr. to I/O.
The Petitioner/Appellant, who is Accused
No.1 filed the present application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking bail, pending disposal of
the Criminal Appeal No.1304 of 2017.
Originally, the Petitioner/Accused No.1
along with Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were tried in
Special Sessions Case No. 38 of 2015 on the file
of Special Sessions Judge for trial of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Cases-cum-
Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu,
for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The learned Sessions Judge, while
acquitting Accused Nos. 2 and 3, convicted
Petitioner/Accused No.1 for the offences 2
punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C.,
and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life for the offence punishable under Section
302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989. He was also found guilty for the
offence punishable under section 201 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of three years and directed to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences and in
default of payment of fine, shall suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of three months, for
each offence. The substantive sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
The only ground, on which, the present
application, seeking bail, came to be filed is
that, the Petitioner has completed 05 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 is
entitled for bail.
1 [2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P). 3
The fact that the Petitioner herein has
completed 05 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 4
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.
The fact that the case of the Petitioner do
not fall within any of the exceptions laid down
in the said Judgment, is also not in dispute. It
is not a case where the Petitioner is alleged to
have committed offence relating to rape coupled
with murder of minor children dacoity, murder
for gain, kidnapping for ransom etc. 5
While acquitting A2 and A3, the learned
Sessions Judge convicted A1 for the offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.
and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
Since, the case of the Petitioner 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 execution of sentence of
imprisonment imposed against the
Petitioner/Accused No. 1 Special Sessions Case
No. 38 of 2015, dated 17.10.2017, on the file of
the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Cases-
Cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, is suspended, pending disposal of the appeal and the
Petitioner/Accused No. 1 shall be enlarged on
bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum
of Rs., 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand 6
Only] with two sureties each for a like sum to
the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial
Magistrate of 1st Class, Ananthapuramu.
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.
Accordingly, the I.A. is ordered.
_______ CPK,J
_________ BVLNC,J dmr
