Bojanala Dhanunjayudu, Dhanu, ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 797 AP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
> PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN RUMAR

AND
THE HONOURABLE SHIT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPS
x

%
LA.RNo. 1 of 2023 |

iN
CRIMINAL APPEAL. No. $13 of 2047

Setween:
Gajula Uday Kumar @ Mahesh, S/o. G. Bramhaian (AS) aged 27
years, Rio. D.No.9-540-4, Rajakunia Streat, Nandyala Town, Kurnodl
District,
._Pativianer/Accused No.g
AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by iis Public Prosecutor, High
Gat of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravad,

. lomplainantReapondent

Pelion under Section 369{1) of CrP.G.. praying that In the
crouimstances stated in the grounds fled im the Criminal Appeal anc
memorandiyt of grounds fled in support of the present application, the High
Court may be pleased to pass orders suspending the sentence imposed on
the Appeianis/Accusad No.6 in SC No. 207 of 2074 on the fle of Srecial
Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs and STs Cases-cum-VIi Additional District
ang Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram dated 10-05-2077 and enlarge the
petilioner/Accused No.8 on ball, pending disposal of CrLA.No. 713 of 2017 on
the file of High Court.

The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the
graunds filed in the Criminal Appeal and earller orders of High Court dt.
23.10.2018 made in LA.No. 3 of 2018, and dt. 04-02-2019, 07-02-2019 &
27.08.2022 & 24.04.2023 made herein and upon hearing the argurnenis of Sri
Rama Lakshamana Reddy Sanapalll, Advocate for the Petitioner and of fha
Public Prosecutor on behalf of raspandent/State, the Court made the following

ORDER:

"The petitioner, whe is an accused No.6 in Crime No.2? of 2013 of

"

B.R.Samudra Pelice Station, filed the present application under Section S86 oN

{1} af the Code of Criminal Procedure 1G73 (Or. P.C.}, seeking bail, pending

disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

The petitioner/ AS was tried along with ather accused in Sessions Case No20" of 2014 on the Re of the learned Special Sessions Jucige for trial

af SCs & STs Cases-curm-VUl Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramn

for the alfences punishable under Sections 148, 109 rfw G02, 302, 307 arul

ANS faye RY AK et, Sieg Beara tl oe 59 SAG fF eS GY

202 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 een n eden 3 "y st siated TOMS ONTS she Teas BS cca ent . 33 oh sess Vide ypudgroent, dated LO.S.2012, the learned Sessions Judge

en.

convirted the petitioner/AS along with other accused for the offence

oye eg gone Whe en dace RR cued « tS APY sea TRENTO a Z purashable under Sections 148, AQS and BOF LEC and snocardins

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 4Qu0 i

o

in default of payment of fine, to gcffer shmole imprisenment for a pened of

six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 LP.C. Further AG

WAS sentenced to undergo rigorous unprisonment for a period of Sve years

and to pay fine of Rs,1,G00/- in defs:

. [email protected] suffer simple

imprisorument for a peried of Uarce months for the offence purushable under Séchon SOF LPC. Further AG was sentenced to undergn rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence purishable uraler Section 148 LPC. Al the substantive sentences were directed toe run

ooncurrenthy.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has camplieied S years of actual sentence after conviction by the tinal

a

Moreover, other accused were also granted ball by this Court on 24.01.9093. Renee, in view of the Judgment in Batch Rangarac & others v. State af

ABS, he would be entitled for hai

after hie cormiction is net in dispute.

Satchu Rangaras & offers supra, h

"On considering thelr valuakle suggestions and after « thoreugh evaluation of the rafeuunt factors, we are inclined to indicate broud orlteria on which the anolications for grant of beat! pending the Criminal Apoeaie fled against the conviction for the affences, including the one under Secon JO? JBC, and santenolay of the appellants to ife among other allied sentences, are to be nonsidered. Accordingly, we evolve the iotlowing orterta:

{2} 4 persun who ts comuefed for ife and whose appeal is Pending before this Court fs entitled to apmly for ball ater Ae has undergone a minimum of flee yours imarisonment following Als conpiotinr,

{2} Grant of bail in foevour of pereons falling in fi} supra ohall be subfect to his good conduot in the fell, aw repartedd by the respective Jalil Superintendents;

{3} In the folowing categories af cases, the consiets wilh not be entitied to be released on hail, despite thedr satisfying the ortterta in (2) and (2) supra:

The offences relating to rape cowpled with murder of sinter children, dacoilty, murder for gain, Kidnapping for ransom, killing

of the public servants, the offences fulling under the National Security Act and the offences pertaining ta narcotic drugs.

f4} While grunting ball, the twee following comditiovs apart from usual condifiens have to be imposed, viz., (7) the appellants on Rail must be present before the Court af the time of Rearing oF the Criminal Appeals; and (2) they must report in the respective Palice Stations once in a month during the bull period.

This broad criteria cannot be understoad as invariable principles and the Bench hearing the hatl AERNINS MPUEY exercise its discretion either fer granting er refecting the bail Sased on the focts of each case. Needless to observe that grant oF bail based on these principles shall, however, be subject to the provisions of Section-389 of the Code af Criminal Procedure. *

Learned Additional Pablic Prosecutor states that the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the exceptions laid down im the said

Pidgment and the conduct of the petitioner in the jail bs satisiactury.

it ie not a case where the petitioner is alleged to have committed affersce

gain, kidnapping for ransom efe.

Since the case of the petitioner falis within the parameters laid dawn in Bautehu Rangarae & others case and as the Judgment of the Division Bench attained Snality, the petitioner shall he released on bail on certain terms and condifions.

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is allowed and the netitioner/AG shall be enlarged on ball on his executing a persorial bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only} with two local sureties for a Hike sum cach to the satisfaction of the isarned Additional judicial Magistrate of | Class, Ananthapuram. However, the petitioner/AG shall repart kefore the concerned Police Station once in a month between 100 AM. and S:d0 P.M. nll disposal of the appeal and he shall be present before the Court at the

time of hearing of this appeal.

it is needless to mention that if the petitioner failed to appear belore the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal or violated the conditions imposed supra, liberty is given to the learned Picblic Prosecutor to take eteps accordingly."

SD/-M. SURYANAOHA REODY DEPUTY REGISTRAR

A TRUE COPY #

SECTION OFFICER

wend fat

od nd wf

ved.

OF On de wa bs

The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs & ST

§ Cases-cumn-Vill

Additional District anc Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram.

The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuram, The Superiniendent, Sub Jail, Kamalapuram, Nadgoa Cistrict. Two OGs to Public Prosenutor, Migh Court of AP (OUT)

Gne CO to Sr Rama Lakshamana Reddy Sanepal Two apare capies.

h, AdvacatefQPUc)

NIGH COURT

CRK,J & VIP.

DATED: 10.03.2023

BAIL ORDER

List the matter on 13.03.9022 al

ong with Criminal Appeal Nos.728, 784, 794 and F95 of O47,

LANo. 1 of 2023 iN CRL.ANo. 743 of 2047

ALLOWED