Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Allada Govinda Rqo Govinda, ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 6 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No: CRL.A.No.565 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
No. DATE ORDER NOTE
03. 06.12.2022 CPK, J & BVLNC,J
I.A. No. 1 of 2022 Tr. to I/O.
The Petitioners/Appellants 1 & 2, who are
Accused No.1 & 2 filed the present application
under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. seeking bail,
pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.565
of 2017.
Originally, the Petitioners/Accused No.1 &
2 were tried in Sessions Case No.14 of 2014 on
the file of III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Srikakulam, for the offence punishable
under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
The learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, while acquitting
Accused No.3 and convicted the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w. Sec.34
I.P.C. The Accused No.1 & 2 were sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
ten thousand only) each, in default of which,
A.1 & A.2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment
for six [6] months each for the offence under
Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.
The only ground, on which, the present
application, seeking bail, came to be filed is
that, the Petitioners have 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 they are
entitled for bail.
The fact that the Petitioners herein have
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;
[2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P).
(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.
The fact that the case of the Petitioners 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 Petitioners are alleged
to have committed offence relating to rape
coupled with murder of minor children dacoity,
murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom etc.
While acquitting A3, the learned Sessions
Judge convicted A1 & A2 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w sec.34 I.P.C.
Since, the case of the Petitioners fall within
the parameters laid down in Batchu Rangarao
& others and as the judgment of the Division
Bench attained finality, the Petitioners 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
Petitioners/Accused No. 1 & 2 in Sessions
Case No.14 of 2014, dated 19.04.2017, on the
file of the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Srikakulam, is suspended, pending
disposal of the appeal and the
Petitioners/Accused No. 1 & 2 shall be enlarged
on bail on their executing a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only] with two sureties each for a
like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. However,
the Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 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 they shall be present
before the Court at the time of hearing of this
appeal.
It is needless to mention that if the
Petitioners 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
