K.B.Kalinga, Kurnool Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7377 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                        MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.637 of 2017

                                          PROCEEDING SHEET

 Sl.
                                                   ORDER

No    DATE
03. 26.09.2022             MGR, J & TMR, J

                                               I.A.No.1 of 2022

This application has been filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C to release the petitioner/ appellant/accused on bail by suspending the sentence passed in Sessions Case No.16 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, vide judgment, dated 01.05.2017 whereby the petitioner/Accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.100-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for 15 days.

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

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

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.

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 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 and considered the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had killed the deceased, his wife, by pouring kerosene on her and set 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 (continued.............)

(continuation)

Crl.A.No.637 of 2017

Registry is directed to call for the lower court record and prepare the booklet and post the appeal under the caption 'final hearing' on 07.11.2022.

_________ MGR, J

_________ TMR, J Vjl