Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Teki Bangari Bangarayya vs State Of A.P., on 12 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.1015 of 2015
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE
ORDER
No
05. 12.10.2022 MGR, J & TMR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
This application has been filed under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C to release the petitioner/
appellant/Accused No.1 on bail by suspending the
sentence passed in Sessions Case No.26 of 2013 on
the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional
Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram.
Vide judgment, dated 17.07.2014, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted the
petitioner/Accused No.1 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 I.P.C and
accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and pay
fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine
amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months, for the offence punishable under Section
498-A IPC; rigorous imprisonment for life and pay
fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine
amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months, for the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of
seven years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount, simple imprisonment for
three months, for the offence punishable under
Section 201 IPC.
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 even on merits there is nothing on
record to convict the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. There is
absolutely no evidence that the petitioner - A1 killed
the deceased and shifted the body of the deceased
from the house to cashew garden. Only basing on
the medical evidence, the petitioner was convicted.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on
instructions, states that the conduct of the petitioner
in the jail is satisfactory. However, he opposed the
application inter alia stating that as per the evidence
2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P).
of PW12, who examined petitioner - A1, there are
nail marks on A1 near left eye and that petitioner -
A1 informed her that due to quarreling with his wife
when he is trying to kill his wife, he received the
injuries.
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
grounds for entertaining the prayer for bail in view
of the parameters laid down in Batchu Rangarao &
others case. Even on merits, having gone through
the judgment of the trial Court, as the petitioner was
convicted, apart from other offence, for committing
murder of the deceased, his wife, by throttling her
neck and simulated the scene that the deceased
herself committed suicide by hanging to the branch
of cashew tree, basing on the circumstantial
evidence and the evidence of PWs.7,8 & 12, we are
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
___________
MGR, J
___________
TMR, J
Crl.A.No.1015 of 2015
Post the appeal for final hearing on 09.11.2022.
___________
MGR, J
___________
TMR, J
Vjl
