Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kota Haji Vali Haji Basha, ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep ... on 31 October, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl. A. No. 829 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE
01 31.10.2022 CPK, J & BVLNC, J
I.A. No. 1 of 2022
In
Crl. A. No. 829 of 2017
The Petitioner, who is the Appellant in
the above appeal, filed the present application
under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking bail,
pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.
The Petitioner/Accused was tried in
Sessions Case No. 455 of 2015 on the file of III
Additional Sessions Judge [FTC],
Anantapuram, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C.
The learned Sessions Judge while
acquitting the Petitioner/Accused for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of
I.PC., convicted him 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.10,000/- in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year.
The present application seeking bail came
to be filed stating that, the Petitioner has
completed 05 years of actual sentence after
filing of the Appeal before Hon'ble Court and
in view of the Judgment in Batchu Rangarao
& others v. State of A.P.1 he would be
entitled for bail.
The fact that Petitioner/Accused has
completed 05 years of actual sentence after
preferring the appeal 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 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.
It is to be noted that, though, the
Petitioner was placed at Semi Open Prison,
Kadapa, but the column 'Punishment' indicate
that, there was forfeiture of remission for five
[05] days and stoppage of interviews for a
period of two [02] months, for the reason that,
mutton pieces cut at the General Kitchen was
fed to cats. This, in our view, cannot be taken
as a circumstance to deny the ratio laid down
in Batchu Rangarao & others supra, more
so, having regard to the nature of offence
committed by him.
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 supra 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 in S.C. No. 455 of 2015,
dated 01.02.2017, on the file of III Additional
Sessions Judge, Anantapuram, is suspended,
pending disposal of the appeal and ordered
that the Petitioner/Accused 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, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu
District.
I.A. is ordered, accordingly.
_______
CPK, J
__________
BVLNC, J
SM
