Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Heard The Learned Counsel For The vs Unknown on 19 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.708 of 2019
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
ORDER
No DATE NOTE
02 19.07.2023 SRK, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner/appellant and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-
State.
The petitioner is accused in POCSO
Sessions Case No.25 of 2016 on the file of the
I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore
and vide judgment dated 05.07.2019, he was
convicted of the offences punishable under
Section 377 IPC and under Section 3 r/w 4 of
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years and also
to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default simple
imprisonment of 2 ½ year for the offence under
Section 377 IPC. He was further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in
default simple imprisonment for 2 ½ year for
the offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO
Act. Against the said conviction and sentence,
the petitioner preferred the present Criminal
Appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that since the date of conviction, the
petitioner is languishing in jail i.e. for more
than four years. He relied on a decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jeeti Khatik
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2022 LawSuit (SC)
476], wherein it was held thus at Paras 14 and
15:
"14. Obviously, the High Court has
not found the appeal worth
assigning a priority for hearing.
That being the position, if the appeal
is to be heard only on its turn, the
likely scenario is that it would not
be taken up for hearing immediately
by the High Court. If the appeal
remains pending in due course and
the appellant by that time serves out
the sentence of imprisonment, and
then, if there be any possibility of
his acquittal or any modification of
the conviction/sentence, the injury
suffered by him would be practically
irreparable.
15. In our view, these aspects, in
the given set of facts and
circumstances of the present case,
are themselves of the compelling
reasons for suspension of execution
of sentence during the pendency of
appeal. There does not appear any
other adverse reason to deny the
relief to the appellant, like any
criminal antecedents before the
incident in question or any blame in
the jail conduct."
This Court perused the record. On the
earlier occasion, this Court directed the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor to produce the
nominal roll of the petitioner/appellant and to
enquire with regard to his antecedents.
Today, when the matter has come up for
hearing, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor produced nominal roll of the
petitioner/appellant. A perusal of the same
would go to show that the accused has
undergone actual sentence, without remand
period, for 4 years 3 days and the total
sentence undergone by him including remand
period and remission is 4 years 11 months and
22 days.
Having regard to the observations made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case cited
supra and in view of the fact that the appeal of
the year 2019 would not come up for hearing in
the near future and since the
petitioner/appellant has already undergone
more than 4 years of sentence of
imprisonment, ends of justice would be met if
he is released on bail, pending the Criminal
Appeal, on certain conditions.
Accordingly, the petition is ordered and
the petitioner/appellant is ordered to be
released on bail on his execution of a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
thousand only) with two sureties for the like
sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned
I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.
The petitioner/ appellant shall report before
the police station concerned once in a month
till disposal of the present Criminal Appeal.
The Criminal Appeal shall be proceeded with,
without seeking adjournments by the parties.
______
SRK,J
anr
