Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vennapusa Yougandhar Reddy A1 ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep ... on 28 September, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: Crl.A.No.1262 of 2016
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE
16. 28.09.2022 MGR, J & TMR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
This Interlocutory Application is filed by
the petitioners/appellants (A.1 to A.4) under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C seeking suspension of
sentence imposed against them in the
Judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed in
S.C.No.124 of 2011 on the file of the II
Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at
Proddatur and for grant of bail.
By the said judgment, the
petitioners/appellants (A.1 to A.4) were
convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC, while acquitting the
accused No.5 for the offence punishable under
Section 302 r/w 120-B and 212 of IPC.
Sri Ambati Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel
for the petitioners/appellants has drawn the
attention of this Court to the evidence of PWs
1, 10 and 11, which are filed along with
I.A.No.1 of 2022 to receive as additional
material papers and states that it is a political
faction village and the deceased is having
several enemies and the petitioners are falsely
implicated in the crime. He further states that
the trial Judge has not considered the evidence
of PWs 1 to 3 and PWs 10 and 11 in its proper
perspective and there is an undue and
unexplained delay in lodging FIR and also
there is a delay in sending Ex.P.1 to the
Magistrate and after consultations only, the
complaint is lodged, which is fatal to the case
of prosecution. He further submits that the
petitioners/appellants have completed 5 years
of actual sentence after conviction by the trial
Court and their character and conduct in the
jail is very good and in view of the judgment in
Batchu Rangarao & others Vs. State of A.P.1,
they would be entitled for bail and ready to
comply with the conditions if any to be
imposed by this Court.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
states that the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Jammalamadugu Sub-Division, Kadapa
District, filed counter and has drawn the
attention of this Court to Para 7, wherein it is
stated that the petitioners/appellants are
having rowdy sheets in the Muddanur U/G PS
and having political influence in the district
and if they are released on bail, there may be
threat to the witnesses and likelihood of arising
the law and order problem.
2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB)(A.P.)
We, having considered the evidence on
record, submissions of the learned counsel and
on perusal of the record, found that the trial
Judge has considered all the aspects before
convicting the petitioners/appellants. The trial
Judge, based on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3,
rightly came to the conclusion that the
petitioners had committed the murder of the
deceased. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant
bail by suspending the sentence imposed by
the trial court under the provisions of Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the
petitioners/appellants at this stage.
Accordingly, the Interlocutory
Application is dismissed.
_________
MGR, J
_________
TMR, J
Crl.A.No.1262 of 2016
Post the matter on 28.12.2022.
_________
MGR, J
_________
TMR, J
anr
