K.Vardan, Renigunta Town ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7383 AP

    HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                 MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.819 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.305 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, vide judgment, dated 06.02.2017 whereby the petitioner/Accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for three months; and, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

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 offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident to prove the guilt of the petitioner. The conviction was based on the circumstantial evidence.

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.

We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court. Having considered the evidence of PW10, coupled with exhibit P8 - FSL report, which reveals that the burns are postmortem in nature, i.e., they occurred after death of deceased, the trial Court held that the petitioner, who was responsible for homicidal death of the deceased, to screen away the offence, burnt the dead body of the deceased, and convicted the petitioner. In

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

view of the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

_________ MGR, J

_________ TMR, J

Crl.A.No.819 of 2017

Post the appeal under the caption 'final hearing' on 30.12.2022.

_________ MGR, J

_________ TMR, J Vjl