Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Jagavarapu Venkatesh vs State Of Ap., on 2 February, 2024

Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

                                            [ 3456 ]
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
                      AMARAVATI
         FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY
                       PRESENT

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

                    I.A.No.1 OF 2023
                           IN
            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1339 OF 2018
 Between:
    1. JAGAVARAPU          VENKATESH,    D.No.41-20/3-71,
       Vallurivari Street, Near Ramalayam, Krishnalanka,
       Vijayawada.
                                                   ...APELLANTS
                               AND
    1. STATE OF AP.,, through Inspector of Police, II Town
       Police Station, vijayawada city, represented by the Public
       Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh,
       Hyderabad.

                                                 ...RESPODENTS

 This Court made the following

 ORDER:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

The petitioner/appellant/accused who is convicted for the

offence U/s 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in

Sessions Case No.195/2016 by the learned XII Additional District ::2::

and Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Vijayawada and serving sentence pending appeal moved the

instant bail application on the main ground that he has been

languishing in the jail for more than six years and seven months

since the date of the judgment and hence he deserves bail as per the

order dated 02.11.2016 in Crl.A.MP.No.1687 of 2016 in

Crl.A.No.607 of 2011 (Batchu Ranga Rao vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh) passed by a Division Bench of Common High

Court of Andhra Pradesh. It is further submitted that the petitioner

has good grounds to argue in the appeal as the entire case is based

on a feeble circumstantial evidence and the trial Court convicted

him on surmises and conjunctures.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor filed counter and opposed the bail

application. Bail is opposed on two main grounds; firstly, that the

petitioner was involved in some other cases viz., (1) Crime

No.538/2009 of I Town PS, Vijayawada for the offences U/s 364,

354 r/w 34 IPC (2) Crime No.167/2013 of Krishna Lanka PS for

the offences U/s 323, 427, 341 r/w 34 IPC and those cases were

disposed of. Later a rowdy sheet was opened against him vide ::3::

C.No:327/ACP-WZ/2009 by the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, West Zone, Vijayawada City.

Secondly, on the ground that that if the appellant/accused is

released on bail pending criminal appeal, there will be a threat to

the wife and mother-in-law and other family members of the

accused as they gave complaint and deposed against him in the

criminal case.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Joseph and

learned Public Prosecutor for respondent.

4. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant/accused is

that he has been languishing in jail for nearly seven years and in

terms of Batchu Ranga Rao, he deserves bail. In Batchu Ranga

Rao's case a Division Bench of Common High Court of Andhra

Pradesh was considering similar bail applications filed by the

appellants/accused from jail for granting bail pending their

criminal appeals. The Division Bench took note of the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab1

wherein it was observed thus:

1977 (4) SCC 291 ::4::

"The practice not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment was evolved in the High Courts and in this Court on the basis that once a person has been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, he should not be let loose, so long as his conviction and sentence are not set aside, but the underlying postulate of this practice was that the appeal of such person should be disposed of within a measurable distance of time, so that if he is ultimately found to be innocent, he would not have to remain in jail for an unduly long period. The rationale of this practice can have no application where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years. It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Can the Court ever compensate him for his incarceration which is found to be unjustified ? Would it be just at all for the Court to tell a person: "We have admitted your appeal because we think you have a prima facie case, but unfortunately we have no time to hear your appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until we hear your appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you may be innocent ?" What confidence would such administration of justice inspire in the mind of the public? It may quite conceivably happen, and it has in fact happened in a few cases in this Court, that a person may serve out his full term of imprisonment before his appeal is taken up for hearing. Would a judge not be overwhelmed with a feeling of contrition while acquitting such a person after hearing the appeal ? Would it not be an affront to his sense of justice ? Of what avail would the acquittal be to such a person who has already served out his term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it ? It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the practice which this Court has been following in the past must be reconsidered and so long as this Court is not in a position to hear the appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court should ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise, release the accused on bail in cases ::5::

where special leave has been granted to the accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence"

Taking note of above and other judgments the Division

Bench evolved the following criteria for considering the bail

applications pending the criminal appeals filed against the

conviction for the offences, including the one U/s 302 IPC:

"(1) A person who is convicted for life and whose appeal is pending before this Court is entitled to apply for bail after he has undergone a minimum of five years imprisonment following his conviction;

(2) Grant of bail in favour of persons falling in (1) supra shall be subject 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 entitled to be released on bail, despite their satisfying the criteria to (1) and (2) supra

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

(4) While granting bail, the two following conditions apart from usual conditions have to be imposed viz., (1) the appellants 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.

The Division Bench while laying down the above criteria has

however observed that the same is not an inscrutable rule for ::6::

granting or refusing bail. It further observed as follows:

"This broad criteria cannot be understood 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. Needless to observe that grant of bail based on these principles shall, however, be subject to the provisions of Section-389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

5. Thus the above criteria laid down by the Division Bench in

its own words are not mandatory principles but helping factors in

other cases while dealing with bail applications pending criminal

appeals. The Court while dealing with such application exercise its

own discretion based on the facts of each case.

6. In the light of above jurisprudence, when the case on hand is

perused, no doubt the accused/appellant falls within the eligible

criteria and his case will not fall in the exceptions category.

However, that alone is not the determinative factor for considering

his bail application. The prosecution submits that previously he

was involved in criminal cases and a rowdy sheet was also opened

against him. Further, the prosecution expressed a reasonable

apprehension that in case bail is granted, there will be a threat to

the wife and mother-in-law of the accused as they lodged ::7::

complaint against him and gave evidence again him in the sessions

case. No doubt the report submitted by Superintendent of Jails,

Central prison, Rajamahendravaram shows that his conduct in the

jail is satisfactory. However, in view of the submissions made by

the prosecution regarding his past criminal conduct and in view of

threat perception expressed, it is not desirable to grant bail to the

appellant/accused pending disposal of the criminal appeal. On the

other hand, as the criminal appeal is of the year 2018 we deem it

apposite to hear the appeal itself.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed and the Registry

is directed to list the matter after three weeks for final hearing.

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

___________________________ KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J 02.02.2024 krk ::8::