Jonalagadda Ruthamma, Guntur ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7847 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.1028 of 2016

                                          PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                                         ORDER

No           DATE
04.       14.10.2022         MGR, J & TMR, J

                                                     I.A.No.1 of 2022

This application is filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C to release the petitioner/appellant/accused on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.156 of 2015 on the file of the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur, vide judgment, dated 16.06.2016 whereby the petitioner/Accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

The main ground urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed more than 6 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, she is 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 offence under Section 302 IPC. All the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Only basing on the dying declaration, which was disputed by the defence, the petitioner was convicted.

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

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, states that the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory.

We have perused the material on record. Though the petitioner has completed 6 years of actual sentence after her conviction and her conduct in the jail is satisfactory, the same cannot be 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 and considering the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had killed her 10 months old son and husband, by pouring kerosene on them and setting fire, which is held to be proved by the trial Court, relying on the dying declaration, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

_________ MGR, J

_________ TMR, J Crl.A.No.1028 of 2016

Registry is directed to call for the lower court record and prepare the booklet and post the appeal under the caption 'final hearing' in usual course, as per its turn.

___________ MGR, J

___________ TMR, J GBS