Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Munshi Abdul Latheef Seit vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 May, 2023
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV :p: 43i':;uLt=`
TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
-.PRESENT:
~~
`t `
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V SESHA SAI JFt.=\l:i:;IAi
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA ` '=-
lANo.1 OF2023
lN
CRLA NO: 173 OF 2018
Between :
Munshi Abdul Latheef Seit, S/o Abdulla Seit, Aged about 57 years, R/o.Donakonda
village and MandaI, Prakasam D'lstrict.
Now he is '[n Central prison at Rajamundry.
...petitioner/Appellant
(petitioner in CRLA 173 OF 2018
on the file of H'lgh Court)
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings,
velagapudi, Amaravath'l, Guntur Distr'lct.
...Respondent/COmPlainant
(Respondents in-dO-)
counsel for the petit-loner : sr-I AMMAJI NETTEM
counsel for the Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
petition under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the affidavit f-lled in support of the petition, the H'lgh Court may be Pleased
to enlarge the petit'loner on ba|ll by suspend'lng the execut'lon of the sentence of
'lmprisonment imposed against the petit'loner in calendar and judgment dated ll-08-
2017 made in Sc 66/2017 on the file Of the C.Ourf Of the Xl" Additional Distr'lct and
sessions judge at Narasaraopet, Pending disposal Of the Crl.A.173/2018, on the file
of the High Court.
The court while directing issue Of notice tO the Respondents herein tO Show
cause as to why this application should not be compl|led w'lth, made the following
order.(The receipt Of this Order Will be deemed tO be the receipt Of nOt'ICe in the
case).
ORDER
"This is an application, filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of
criminal procedure, seek|lng bail.
Main Criml-nal Appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner-accused
against the judgment dated ll.08.2017, passed by the court of the learned xlII
Additional District and sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, in sessions case No.66
of 2017. By way of the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted
the accused-petitI-Oner herein for the offence punishable under section 302
I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to
Pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple I-mPriSOnment for One
month-
In this application, the petitioner is seeking bail by placing reliance on
the judgment of the composl-te High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of
Batchu Rangarao and ore., vs., state of Andhra Pradesh reported -ln I:2016(a)
ALT (Criminal) 505 (AP)I. In the said judgment, the court laid down the
following guidelines, while considering the bail applications of the present
nature:
".(1). A p.:rso_n who_ is convicted for life and whose appeal is pending
befo.re this ??urt is entitled to apply for bail after he has und±rgone-a
minimum of five years imprisonment following his conviction,®
(2) _Prant a_f bail in favour of persons failing in (1) supra shall be
s:P!e_ct to _his good conduct in the jail, as reported by the respective
Jail Superintendents;
(3) In the following categories of cases, the convicts will not be
entifI:_I to be released on bail, despite their satisfying the criteria in (1)
and (2) supra.~
J
The offences relating to rape coupled with murder of minor children
dacoity,. mrrder__for gain, kidnapping for ransom, killing of the public
se_rants, the offences falling under the National Security Act and the
offences pertaining to narcotic drugs.
(4) W_!i_Ie granting bail, the two following conditions apart from usual
conditions have to be imposed, viz., (1) the appeIIants on bail must be
present before the Court at the time of hearing of the Criminal
Appeals; and (2) they must report in the respective Police Stations
once in a month during the bail period."
Instructions furnished by the jail Superintendent are placed on record
by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to the said instructions, the
conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and he has completed more than five
years of actual sentence. [t 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, this petition is allowed, directing enlargement
of the petitioner on bail subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum
each to the satisfaction of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Vinukonda. It is made clear that the petitioner shall 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 brought to the notice of this Court for
passing necessary order for cancellation of bail. It is further made clear that at
the time of hearing the appeal, the petitioner shall be present before this
Court-w
Sd.J,, a. tirirL.A NAIDU
ASSIS-rANT R .-_
a-r^ Ll+ p\^|I
3 jS Tj.{AFt
//TRUE COPY//
Forl I SECTION OFF'CE'R
Tol
1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda.
2. The XllI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
3. The Superintendent, Central prison at Rajamahendravaram, East
Godavari District.
4. One CC to SRl. AMMAJI NETTEM Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT]
6. T`wo spare copies.
psk
HIGH COURT
AVSS,J
DVR,J
DATED:02/05/2023
BAIL ORDER
lANo.1 OF2023
IN
CRLA NO: 173 OF 2O18
ALLOWED
