Shaik Mahaboob Basha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6988 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                        MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.1864 of 2018

                                          PROCEEDING SHEET

 Sl.
                                                        ORDER

 No          DATE
.         14.09.2022         MGR, J & TMR, J

                                                   I.A.No.1 of 2022

                                      This        application      is     filed   by    the

petitioner/appellant/A1, to release him on bail by suspending the sentence passed in Sessions Case No.61 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge Court, Kadapa.

Vide judgment, dated 23.01.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner/Accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.; to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

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

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

bail. There is no eyewitness to the incident and the petitioner was convicted basing on circumstantial evidence.

Learned Public Prosecutor, placed on record, a copy of the written instructions, wherein it is stated that the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory.

We have perused the material on record. The fact that the petitioner has completed 5 years of actual sentence after his conviction is not in dispute. The same cannot be a sole ground for entertaining the prayer for bail in view of the parameters laid down in Batchu Rangarao & others case, particularly, in a case where the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for causing death of his wife. Further, in view of the contents of the dying declaration given by the deceased to the effect that on the date of incident petitioner-A1 came to the house consuming liquor and quarreled with the deceased and poured kerosene on her and when she tried to go out, he dragged her into the room and set fire to her, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

_________ MGR, J

_________ TMR, J Vjl