Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs Unknown on 14 June, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: Crl.A. No. 1597 of 2018
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
7 14.06.2023 CMR, J & TRR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2023
The petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in S.C.No.116 of 2016 on
the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. A-1 was
tried for the offences punishable under sections 302, 498-A of
IPC and A-2 was tried for the offence punishable under Section
302 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of the trial, eventually both
the petitioners were found guilty for the said offences and
accordingly they were convicted for the said offence and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Aggrieved thereby, they have preferred Appeal to this
Court and filed this Interlocutory Application for grant of bail to
the petitioners. They sought bail mainly on the ground that they
have been undergoing imprisonment for more than five years
period of time invoking the guidelines that are prescribed by
this Court in the case of Batchu Rangarao v. The State Of
Andhra Pradesh reported in 2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)
As can be seen from the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is a case of committing murder of wife of A-1 with help
of A-2, who is his friend. The deceased was killed by subjecting
her to manual strangulation. The medical evidence on record
proves that it is a case of homicidal death. The evidence of
P.W.12 prima facie establishes that she has seen both the accused
leaving the house after the murder took place. The 1st petitioner,
who is A-1 being the husband, has to explain as to how his wife
is subjected to homicidal death while she was in his company
under the same roof. He failed to explain the same. Therefore,
considering the evidence on record and facts and circumstances
of the case, the trial court recorded a clear finding of guilt
against both the petitioners of committing murder of the
deceased. So, as it is a grave offence of murder that was
committed by both the petitioners with a common intention,
even though the petitioners were undergoing imprisonment for
more than five years period, we are not inclined to enlarge the
petitioners on bail at this stage. The Division Bench of this Court
in the above case at para No.11 of the Judgment clearly held that
the broad criteria cannot be stated as invariable principles and
the Bench hearing the bail applications may exercise its
discretion either for granting or rejecting the bail based on the
facts of each case.
Therefore, as discussed supra, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, as there is sufficient evidence on
record to prove that the petitioners have committed murder of
the deceased with common intention, which is a grave offence,
we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of
bail to the petitioners. Therefore, the Interlocutory Application
is dismissed.
Crl. A. No.1597 of 2018
For preparation of paper book and for hearing, list the
matter after four (4) weeks.
_______
CMR, J
__________
TRR, J
AKN/MKK
