Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chappidi Srinivasa Reddy, Kadapa ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 31 January, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl. A. No. 473 of 2016
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE
01 31.01.2022 CPK, J & Dr. KMR, J
I.A. No. 1 of 2022
In
Crl. A. No. 473 of 2016
The Petitioner, who is Accused No. 3,
filed the present application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking bail, pending disposal
of the Criminal Appeal.
The petitioner/A3 along with other
accused was tried in Sessions Case No. 151 of
2014 on the file of VI Additional Sessions
Judge, Anantapuram at Gooty, for the offence
punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
The learned Sessions Judge convicted the
Petitioner/A3 for the offence punishable under
Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced
him to undergo imprisonment for life and also
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for three
months.
The main ground urged by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner is that, the
Petitioner is a patient of thyroid cancer
(Papillary Carcinoma of thyroid with lymph
node metastasis) and has undergone total
Thyoridectomy with neck dissection for the
same on 16.11.2016 at Basavatharakam
Cancer Hospital, Hyderabad.
On instructions, the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted a copy of the letter,
dated 22.01.2022, addressed by the
Superintendent of Jails (FAC), Central Prison,
Kadapa, to him, along with a Medical
Certificate, dated 21.01.2022.
A perusal of the Medical Certificate would
show that, the Petitioner/A3 has undergone
total Thyoridectomy with neck dissection at
Basavatharakam Cancer Hospital, Hyderabad.
Post operative, Whole Body Iodine Scan was
performed, which shows the presence of
significant remnant of thyroid tissue in the
various part of the body and the Petitioner
requires follow up treatment at
Basavatharakam Cancer Hospital, Hyderabad.
The another 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 would be entitled for bail.
[2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P).
The fact that Petitioner/A3 has undergone
total Thyoridectomy with neck dissection at
Basavatharakam Cancer Hospital, Hyderabad,
and that he 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 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.
While acquitting A5, the learned Sessions
Judge convicted the Petitioner/A3 along with
other accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced each of them to suffer
imprisonment.
Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and submission of
learned Counsel for the parties and since the
case of the petitioner falls within the
parameters laid down in Batchu Rangarao &
others [cited above] 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. 3 in S.C. No. 151 of
2014, dated 12.04.2016, on the file of VI
Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuram at
Gooty, is suspended, pending disposal of the
appeal and ordered that the
Petitioner/Accused No. 3 shall be enlarged on
bail on him executing a personal bond for a
sum of Rs., 15,000/- [Rs. Fifteen Thousand
Only] with two sureties each for a like sum to
the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of
1st Class, Tadipatri.
_____________________
C. Praveen Kumar, J
_________________________
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J
SM
