Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Saleela Siva, Vizianagaram Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 27 April, 2023
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE ll^/ENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL,
TWO THOUSAND AND ll^/ENTY THREE
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V SESHA SAI
E=
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
lANo.1 OF2023
/-
lN
CRLA NO: 1155 OF 2017
EEEEE]
Between:
Saleela Siva, S/o.Late Yerrayya, R/o. Kosuru Veedhi, Jagannadhapuram,
Parvathipuram.
...Appellant/Accused No.1
(Petitioner in CRLA 1155 OF 2017
on the file of High Court)
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court of
Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondent/Complainant
(Respondents in-do-)
Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the
circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of criminal appeal, the High
Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence, judgment
passed on 5th, August, 2017, in SC No.82 of 2016 on the file of lI Addit'lonal
Sessions Judge, a Parvatipuram and release the petitioner on bail, pending
disposal of the above criminal appeal'no.1155 of 2017, pending disposal of
CRLA No.1155 of 2017, on the file of the High Court.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and
memorandum of grounds of criminal appeal and the order of the High Court
dated 23.10.2018 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of M/s Vijaya
Saradhi, Advocate for the Appellant and Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent, the Court made the following;
ORDER:
[{This is an application, filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, seeking bail.
Main Criminal Appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner-
accused No.1 against the judginent dated 05.08.2017, passed by the
Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge at Parvatipuram, in
Sessions Case No.82 of 2016. By way of the said judgment, the learned
Sessions Judge convicted the accused No.1-petitioner herein and
sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
~J,
of Rs.2,OOO/-, in default, tO Suffer rigorous imPr-lSOnment for a Per-lad Of
six months, for the offence punishable under section 3O2 I.P.C., and tO
suffer rigorous imprisonment for a per-tod of two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.goo/-, in default, tO Suffer Simple imprisonment for a Period Of
three months, for the offence punishable under section 498-A I.P.C.
ln this application, the petitioner is seeking bail by plac-lng
reliance on the judgment of the composite High Court of Andhra
pradesh -ln the case ot Batchu RangaraO and Ore., Vs., State of Andhr_a_
pradesh reported in [2O16(3) ALT (Criminal) 505 (AP)I. In the sa'ld
judgment, the court laid down the follow-lng guidelines, wh-lle
considering the bail applications Of the Present naturei
"(1) A person Who iS COnViclted for life and Whose aPP_eal i.s
pending before this court is eiititled to apply for bail _a::er :e
has undergone a minimum;^of five years imprisonment following
his conviction,-
(2) Grant of bail in favour Of PerSOnS failing in (1) supra :Pall :.e
subject to his good conduct i`n the jail, as reported by the
respect-lve Jail Superintendents;
-e-ntitled
(3) to be released
In the following OnOfbail,
CategOriiS Cases,despite their Satisfying
the COnViCts Wi_lI _not the
?e
criteria in (1) and (2) supra.a ,
The offenCeS relating to rape COuP'ed W-Ith murder Of minor
children daCOity, murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom, killing
of the public servants, the .OffenCeS
I falling under the National
security Act and the OffenCe5 I-beriaining to narcotic drugs.
(4) While granting bail, the twb'fOIIowing cOndit-lone aP=_rf from
usual conditions have to be `i.mPOSed, ViZ., (1) the apPellants on
ba" must be present beforia th6- court at the time of hearing Of
the criminal Appeals; and (2)lthey must report in the respective
police Stations Once in a month during the bail period."
Instructions furnished by the jail superilltendent are Placed On
record by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to the said
instructions, the conduct of the lpetitioner is satisfactory and he has
completed more than five years of'`actual sentence. lt is not the case of
the prosecution that the instant case falls under the exceptions as
mentioned in the aforesaid decision,
For the aforesaid reasons, ~thi`s petition is allowed, directing
enlargement of the petitioner on bail subject to the petitioner furnishing
a personal bond of Rs.5O,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two
sureties for the like sum each to `the satisfaction of the court of the
learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Parvatipuram. It is
made clear that the petitioner shaII` attend before the said court on one
day in the first week of every month, pending appeal and if the same is
not adhered to, the same be br6iight to the notice of this court for
passing necessary order for can6eIIiti6n of bail. [t is further made clear
\{r*
that at the time of hearing the appeal, the petitioner shall be present
before this Court." 't. I
Sd/-P. V!NOD tr`UEL,,'lAR
ASS!Sl''ANT RE.GISl'P`AP.
//TRUE COPY//
\ -.. ``
F, SECTION C)FFICER
Tol
1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First ClassI Parvatl'puram.
2. The ll Additl'onal Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram.
3. The Superintendent, central 'Prisoh', visakhapatnam.
4. One CC to Sri. G.Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAP [OUT]
6. Two spare copies
MM
HIGH COURT
AVSSJ
&
TMRJ
DATED :27/04/2023
ORDER
lANo.1 OF2023
IN
CRLA NO: 1155 OF 2017
. `.'`.
•gr,-,-r.fI
- ,ul
\.i ..
``'€,;/` .
.\
.j]
I)
i *o~
r`tc
lNTERIM DIRECTION -_ --.: ::i...-::.: __:-::---.::-:. ---.-: :-:-
