Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt. Maram Reddy Pavitra, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 January, 2024

Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao

Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
                          AND
     THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

                           I.A.No.1 of 2023
                                  IN
                         Crl.A.No.1538 of 2018

                                 AND

                           I.A.No.1 of 2023
                                  IN
                         Crl.A.No.1539 of 2018

COMMON ORDER:

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

Both the petitioners/appellants/accused 1 and 2 who were

convicted for the offence U/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced for life

imprisonment as per the judgment dated 09.04.2018 in SC No.339/2017

by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali and

serving sentence in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram pending their

appeals, moved the instant bail applications to enlarge them on bail

pending their appeals.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri P.V.N Kiran Kumar and

learned public prosecutor.

3. Firstly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have strong

grounds to succeed in the appeal, inasmuch as the trial Court without

proper appreciation of the evidence on record convicted them. He would ::2::

submit that though PW2 - the daughter of the deceased did not

specifically state regarding the presence of accused No.2, however the

trial Court in its judgment recorded as if PW1's evidence was

corroborated by PW2 in all respects. Both the witnesses are interested

witnesses and the other alleged eye witnesses who are independent

witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Hence all these aspects

required to be considered while hearing the appeals. He would submit

that at any rate, since the appeals are not the oldest ones and there is no

likelihood of their appeals being heard in the immediate future, the

request of the petitioners for granting of bail may be considered.

4. Secondly, he submitted that both the petitioners since after

conviction served more than five years in the jail pending their appeals

and they exhibited good conduct in the prison and hence they are

eligible to seek bail in the light of guidelines given by a Division Bench

of Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.A.MP 1687/2016 in

Crl.A.No.607/2011 in the case of Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of

Andhra Pradesh and therefore their pray may be considered.

5. Thirdly, on factual side it is submitted that both the appellants are

the husband and wife and in view of their languishing in jail, their two ::3::

children who are left with the parents of petitioner/accused No.1 are

suffering a lot for want of parental love, care and maintenance and the

parents of the 1st petitioner due to their old age ailments are not able to

take care of their children.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications on the

ground that both of them were involved in a heinous murder of their

neighbor without his fault or provocation and they do not deserve any

favourable consideration though they have served more than five years

in the prison. The other facts were not spoken by learned public

prosecutor.

7. The point for consideration is whether both the

petitioners/appellants/accused 1 and 2 deserve bail U/s 389(1) CRPC

pending their criminal appeals?

8. POINT: The facts would show petitioners 1 and 2 are the

husband and wife and A1 was working in army. They are residents of

Katevaram Village, Tenali Mandal. Brief facts which led to their

conviction are that the house of deceased is situated very adjacent to the

house of accused. Few days prior to the incident, the deceased started

construction of first floor on his terraced building. In the course of such ::4::

construction, daily some sand and cement dust used to fall down into the

house of accused. In that regard some altercation took place between

both parties. A1 quarreled with deceased but however the neighbors

pacified them. A1 threatened to kill the deceased. On 07.02.2017 at

about 5:00 PM in the absence of deceased, both the accused went the

house of deceased and demanded his wife to stop the construction work

for which she replied that the deceased was not present in the house and

she would inform him. While so, on the next day i.e., on 08.02.2017 at

about 8:00 AM while the deceased was going on the road to bring tiffin,

both the accused stopped him in front of the provision shop of Brahmam

and questioned him as to why he had not stopped the construction in

spite of A1's repeated demand and abused deceased and all of a sudden

A1 picked up a stainless steel knife and attacked the deceased and

forcibly pierced the knife on the left side chest of the deceased and

hacked on the right side forehead of the deceased. On seeing the same

PWs 1 and 2 - the wife and daughter of the deceased rushed there. The

deceased fell down and later in the hospital where he was taken, he was

declared brought dead. After investigation, police filed charge sheet

against the both the accused and they were tried for offence U/s 302 r/w ::5::

34 IPC and they trial Court convicted and sentenced them as stated

supra.

9. Be that as it may, the submission of petitioners is that the trial

Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of interested eye

witnesses - PWs1 and 2 and without there being corroboration, the

accused were convicted. It must be noted that in the bail application, it

is not apposite to discuss about the respective merits and demerits of the

petitioners in the main appeals except to the extent of dwelling on the

background facts which led to conviction to have a comprehension as to

whether the murder committed by them is for gain or whether the

petitioners are habitual offenders involved in a number of cases etc. So,

when the case on hand is scrutinized to that limited extent, the offence

seems to have been committed by them not for any monitory gain and

the prosecution have not projected them as habitual offenders. Even

according to prosecution the dispute was on a petty issue of the dust and

debris falling from the under constructed first floor of the deceased

down to the house of the accused causing annoyance to them.

10. Then it has now to be seen whether petitioners' case can be

considered in the light of guidelines given in Batchu Ranga Rao's case.

::6::

A Division Bench of Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh having

considered the plaint of imprisoned appellants whose appeals could not

be disposed of within a reasonable period and also considering that the

requirement of consideration of bail application in individual cases

based on merits will consume substantial judicial time, which would

impinge upon the time required to be devoted for disposal of main

criminal appeals, evolved certain criteria for considering the bail

applications of the appellants who are serving the sentence pending their

appeals. The criteria mentioned by the Division Bench in its order dated

02.11.2016 can be extracted thus:

"(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.

::7::

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."

11. When the above criteria is applied to the petitioners' case, they

served imprisonment for more than five years since after the judgment

dated 09.04.2018 in SC No.339/2017. Further, the reports dated

28.04.2023 and 10.05.2023 of petitioners 1 and 2 sent by the

Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Rajamahendravaram and

Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram

respectively would show that their conduct in jail has been satisfactory.

Added to it, the offence for which the petitioners were convicted do not

fall within the exceptions enumerated in Batchu Ranga Rao's case.

Therefore, the eligibility criteria would squarely apply to the petitioners.

12. Above all, admittedly the petitioners are husband and wife and the

factum of their having two children who are now under the custody of

their grand-parents is not in dispute. Therefore, there is reasonability in

the submission of petitioners that their children are missing their

parental love and care. The appeals are of the year 2018 and there is no ::8::

immediate possibility of appeals being heard and disposed of on merits.

Considering all these factors, we hold that the petitioners deserve bail

pending their appeals.

13. Accordingly, both the bail petitions are allowed and the

petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on their executing

personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two

sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of XI Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Tenali. On fulfilling the said condition the

petitioners shall be enlarged. Further, (1) the petitioners on bail must be

present before the Court at the time of hearing of Criminal Appeals as

and when directed and (2) they must report before SHO, Tenali Rural

PS on the 1st date of every month until the disposal of the appeals.

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

___________________________ KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J 22.01.2024 krk ::9::