Smt. A Gayatri Reddy vs Public Prosecutor (Ap}
2023 Latest Caselaw 558 AP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT!

THURSDAY THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR =~
AND

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA =~

IA No. 1 OF 2023
IN
CRLA NO: 1645 OF 26047
Behvean:

1. Kadyala Gangaraju, So, Late Narsimhulu, Rfo. Gollapeta Village,
Chinthapalem Fanchayathi, Visakhapatnam Distict.
{AT}
2. Bugatha Pydi Naidu, S/o. Suryanarayana, Rio. Saripalll Village, Pendurthy
Mandal, Visaknapainam District,
(A-g}

_ Appellanis/Accused Nos. 1 and 2
(Patitioner in CRLA 1645 OF 2007

on the file of High Court
AND

The Siste of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of

Judicature al Hyderabad,

_ Respondent
{Respondents mdo-}

Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. A GAYATRI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP}
Petition under Section 388(1) Or F.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit fled in support of the patifion, the High Court may be nicased tc release the
petitioners on ball in CdA.No. 1645 of 2017 which is pending before this Hon'ble

"ourt, in the interest of justice, Pending disposal of CRLA No. 1645 of ZD1Y, an ihe .

Mie of the High Court.

The court while directing issue of notice fo the Respondents herean {9 Show
sguse as to why this applicatiom should not be complied with, made the following
order(The receipt of this order wil he deemed to be the receipt of natice in the
ase).


ORDER

"The petitioners, whe are accused Nos.4 and 2 in Crime No iF of 2949 of Rothavalasa Police Station, Aled the presant application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.c), Seeking bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Agpeal,

The petitioners/Al and A2 were ied In Sessions Case No if of 2045 on the fle of the learned | Additional Disinict and Seasions Judge, Visianagaram for the offences punishable under Sections S02 riw 34 anced 204 raw 34 of the indian Penal Code, 1860 (.P.C.},

Vide judgment, dated 29.44.2017, the learned Seasions Judge convicted the pettionera/Ad and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 riw 4 and 2304 rlw 34 of LPC and accordingly, sentenced sach of them to uriderge imprisonment for fe and to pay fine of Ra.§0.000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ane year each far the offence punishable under Section 302 rw 34 LPG and also sentenced both of them to underge rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ sach, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 201 rw 34 LPC and the substantive sentenced were directed to run cancurreniiy

The only ground on which the prasanmt application seeking ball came to be fled is that the petitioners have completed § years of actual sentence after conviction by the trial Court and in wew of the Judgment in Batehuy Rangarae & others v. State of AP, they would be entitled for ball,

The fact that the pefitieners have completed § years of actual sentence after thelr convictian is not in dispute. The Division Bench of this Court in Satehu Rangarao & offers supra, held as under:

"On considering thelr valuable suggestions and after ¢ fhorough evaluation of the relavant factors, we are inclined to

:

indieats Broad criteria on which the applications for grant of bail

"2016 Gy ALT (Cr) S08 (DBS (A.B),

pending the Criminal Appeals filed against the conviction far the offences, including the ane under Section-302 iPC, and sentencing of the appellants fo ife among other allied sentences, are fo be considered. Accordingly, we evolve ihe following criteria:

{i} A person whe is convicted for ife and whose appeal is pending before this Court is entiied fo apply for bail after he has undergane a minimum of five years imprisonment follewing Ais eamvdchlon;

(2) Grant of bail in favour of persons falling in (1) supra shall &e subject to his good conduct in the jail, as reported by tre respactye Jaf Superintendents;

(3) In the following categearies of cases, the canvicts will not Bs entitled fo be released on ball, despite their satisfying the criteria in {T} and (2) supra:

The offences relating fo rape coupled with murder of minor children, dacoity, murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom, killing of the public servants, the offences failing under the National Security Acf and the offences pertaining ta narcotic drugs.

{4} While granting bail, the two following canditiens apart from usual conditiens have to be imposed, viz, (1) the appellants an ball must be present before the Court af the time of hearing af the Criminal Appeais; and (2) they must repart in the respective Police Stations ones in a month during the ball period.

This broad criteria cannot ge understoad as invariable principles and the Bench Asaring the bail applications may srercige its discretion effher for granting or rejecting the bail based on the facts of eack case. Nesdless to observe that grant of bail based on these principles shall, however, be subject to the provisions of Seotion-388 of the Cade of Criminal Procedure."

Learned Public Prosecutor states that the case of the petitioners does not fall within any of the exceptions laid down in the said judgment and the

conduet of the petitioners in the jail is satiafactory.

it is not a case where the petitioners are alleged fo have committed offence relating to rape coupled with murder of minor shildran, dacoaity,

murder for gain, kidnapping for ransom ats,

Since the case of the petitioners falls within the parameters laid down bi

Batehu Rangarao & others case and as the judgment of the Division Bench

attained finality, the petitioners shall be released on ball on certain terms and

eanditions.

Accordingly, the interlocutory Application is allowed and the petitioners/At and A2 shall be enlarged on ball on their execuling personal bends for a sum of Rs.28,000/- (Rupces Twenty ive thousand only} each with two local sureties for a fike sum cach to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of Firat Class, Kolttavalasa, Vigianagaram District. However, the petitionersi/Al and Ag shall report before the concerned Police Station ones in amonih between 70:00 A.M. and 8:00 PM. GH disposal of the appeal and they shall be present before the Court at the time of hearing of this appeal,

if a needigss to mention that if the petitioners failed te appear before the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal or violated the conditiens imposed supra, iberty is given to the learned Public Prosecutor to take aiens

accordingly."

Sdi- U. SRE DEV! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HYRUE COPY ce "Ss« SECTION OFFICER Te,

1. The | Additional Oistict and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram -<7

S. The Superintendant, Central Prisan, Visakhapatiam <<

&. The Station House Officer, Kotavalasa PS Vizianagaram District <7

3. One CC to SRL A GAYATRI REDDY Advocate [OPUC}

8 Two Cts to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of APIOUT]

7. Ofe spare capy.

pk

HIGH COURT

CPKU VUPJ

DATED O22/2023

ORDER

iA No. 1 OF 2029 iN GRLA NO: 1848 OF 2047

ALLOWED