Rokkarokkla Satish, Guntur Amp ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7460 AP

                                     1



        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No: Crl.A.No.906 of 2017

                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                           ORDER

No      DATE

5.    28.09.2022   MGR, J & TMR, J

                                   I.A.No.1 of 2022

This Interlocutory Application is filed by the petitioner/1st appellant (A.1) under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence imposed against him in the Judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed in S.C.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judge under POCSO Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and for grant of bail.

By the said judgment, the petitioner/1st appellant (A.1) was convicted along with 2nd appellant (A.2, who died in jail pending appeal) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 366-A of IPC and they further sentenced to under Rigorous Imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 376-D of IPC, while acquitting the accused No.3 for all the charges.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 5 days in

lodging the complaint and the prosecution has miserably failed to put forth plausible explanation for the said delay. She further submits that the doctor who examined the prosecutrix did not find any physical abuse on her and the prosecution intentionally omitted the crucial witnesses and some of them were not even examined. She further submits that the petitioner has completed 5 years of actual sentence after conviction by the trial Court and in view of the judgment in Batchu Rangarao & others Vs. State of A.P.1, he would be entitled for bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner along with the deceased appellant had committed heinous act of rape on the minor girl and the involvement of the petitioner/1st appellant and other deceased 2nd appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Having regard to the facts in issue and as the petitioner/1st appellant (A.1) is convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 366-A and 376-D of IPC for committing heinous act of sexual assault on the minor girl and as no special reasons or a case is made out, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail by suspending the sentence imposed by the trial court under the provisions of

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

Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/1st appellant at this stage.

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed.

_________ MGR, J

_________ TMR, J

Crl.A.No.906 of 2017

Post the matter in the usual course as per its turn.

_________ MGR, J

_________ TMR, J anr