This Petition Is Filed To Condone ... vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 2752 AP

           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                    MAIN CASE NO.: Crl.A.No.217 of 2022
                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                     OFFICE
        Date                               ORDER
No.                                                                      NOTE

02    24.06.2022

SRS,J Crl.A.No.217 of 2022

Admit.

Call for records.

__________ SRS, J I.A.No.3 of 2022

This petition is filed to condone the delay

of 2150 days in filing the appeal.

Petitioner/Appellant was convicted for

the offences punishable under Sections 342,

376(2)(I), 354-A(1) and 376-D of IPC and

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

22 years, in total.

Learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor did not oppose this petition.

Since the petitioner is languishing in jail,

for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in

support of the petition, delay of 2150 days in

filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, this petition is ordered.

___________ SRS, J I.A.No.1 of 2022

In view of orders passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

___________ SRS, J

I.A.No.2 of 2022

The petitioner is A.2 in Sessions Case

No.192 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions

Judge, Guntur. Vide judgment dated

16.05.2016, he was convicted of the offences

punishable under Sections 342, 376 (2) (I) and

376D IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six months for

the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC;

rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty

two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in

default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a

further period of six months, for the offence

punishable under Section 376D IPC. The

learned Sessions Judge has not imposed any

sentence for the offence punishable under

Section 376 (2) (I) IPC holding that the

sentences imposed for the offence punishable

under Section 376D IPC would meet the

mandate of law.

The only ground on which the present

application seeking bail came to be filed is that

the petitioner has completed 5 years' of actual

sentence after conviction by the trial Court and

in view of the Judgment in Batchu Rangarao

& others Vs. State of A.P. [(2016 (3) ALT

(Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P)], he would be

entitled for bail.

This Court perused the record. A perusal

of the same would go to show that the accused

has undergone actual sentence, with remand

period, for 6 years 6 months and 18 days and

the total sentence undergone by him including

remand and remission as on 30.12.2021 is 8

years eight months.

This Court feels that the appeal may not

come up for hearing in the near future for the

reason that the Criminal Appeal is of the year

2022. Moreover, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed

the petition. Since the petitioner/appellant has

already undergone more than 6 years' of

sentence of imprisonment, ends of justice

would be met if he is released on bail, on

certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petition is ordered, and

the petitioner/appellant is ordered to be

released on bail on his execution of a personal

bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty

thousand only) with two sureties for the like

sum, to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge,

Guntur. The petitioner/ appellant shall report

before the police station concerned once on a

month till disposal of the present Criminal

Appeal. The Criminal Appeal shall be

proceeded with without seeking adjournments

by the parties

___________ SRS, J PVD