Silla Rajendra Reddy, ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 9301 AP

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.854 of 2017

PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE 05.12.2022 MGR, J & SV, J

IA.No.2 of 2022

Heard Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application has been filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C, suspending the sentence imposed on the petitioner in Sessions Case No.38 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Vide judgment, dated 17.07.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner along with other accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 363, 120-B and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.

The main ground urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed more than 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that conviction of the petitioner is based on the circumstantial evidence and no motive against the petitioner is attributed and proved.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of five years one month and his conduct in the jail is satisfactory. However, he states that the learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.4 coupled with the evidence of doctor, convicted the petitioner/appellant. He further submits that there is no perversity in the findings given by the trial Court and prays to dismiss the petition.

We have perused the material on record. Though the petitioner has completed 5 years of actual sentence after his conviction and his conduct in the jail is satisfactory, the same cannot be only ground for entertaining the prayer for bail, in view of the parameters laid

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

down in Batchu Rangarao's case.

Even on merits, having gone through the judgment of the trial Court and considered the case of the prosecution that there was conspiracy among the petitioner and others for kidnapping the deceased, which is held to be proved by the trial Court, relying on the medical evidence, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

Crl.A.No.854 of 2017 List the matter for 'Final hearing'. Registry is directed to prepare the booklet as expeditiously as possible.

_________ MGR, J

________ SV, J MP