Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Subhani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 June, 2024
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATHI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
I.A.No.2 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.210 of 2021
Between
Jada Poluraju ... Petitioner/Appellant
and
State of A.P., S.I. of Police,
Suryaraopet P.S., Vijayawada City,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
Amaravati. ... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. K.V. Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for the respondent : The Public Prosecutor
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam)
The appellant/ accused/ petitioner is convicted in
S.C. No.109 of 2018 by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and lodged in Central Prison,
Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Pending Criminal
UDPR,J& JS,J
I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.A.No.210 of 2023
Appeal No. 210 of 2021, the appellant filed the instant
application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge
him on bail.
2. The appellant faced the trial for the alleged commission of
an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The
allegation against the appellant is that the accused quarreled
with the deceased sometime prior to the incident for money,
that the accused killed the deceased by throwing a concrete
stone at him, and that the accused committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant faced the
trial in the Court of the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Vijayawada, in S.C. No. 109 of 2018. After considering
the available material on record, the trial Court held that the
established evidence is that the accused had thrown M.O.3, a
heavy-weight concrete stone, on the deceased when he was
sleeping. The incident happened on the deadnight of
03.06.2017. The reason for committing the murder is a petty
UDPR,J& JS,J
I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.A.No.210 of 2023
dispute for money. The accused waited for an opportunity on
the deadnight and caused the death of the deceased by
throwing a heavy weight stone and causing injuries to the vital
parts, head and face. It shows the cruel attitude of the accused
towards the deceased. The accused is convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to
pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-. In default of payment of such fine, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would submit
that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in placing
reliance on Ex.P.7-C.C.T.V. footage which is contrary to
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and convicted
the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the
petitioner is languishing in jail for more than five years and that
there are very fair chances of the petitioner getting acquitted in
the criminal appeal and placed reliance on the judgment dated
UDPR,J& JS,J
I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.A.No.210 of 2023
02.11.2016 of Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh passed in Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607
of 2011 (Batchu Rangarao Vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh) and prayed for bail pending the criminal appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would
submit that there is a clear motive for the petitioner to kill the
deceased and the prosecution has established the same; there
is no enmity between P.Ws.3&4 and the petitioner; earlier, a
similar application was filed before the Court being I.A.No.1 of
2023 and this Court, while relying on the principles laid down in
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Preet Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2020)
8 SCC 645, dismissed the said application on 28.03.2023 on
the ground that the petitioner did not make out any case for
granting bail. The learned Public Prosecutor would further
submit that the present case does not fall within the exceptions
UDPR,J& JS,J
I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.A.No.210 of 2023
engrafted in Batchu Rangarao case (supra) and, moreover,
there are no changed circumstances in the present bail
application and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the present
application.
5. This Court is of considerable view that all the grounds
raised in the present petition were raised earlier in I.A. No.2 of
2023, which was dismissed on 28-3-2023. Except for stating
that the petitioner has completed five years of sentence, no
new grounds are raised in the present petition, and this Court,
while dismissing the earlier I.A., has categorically stated that
the paper books are made ready by the registry. The grounds
urged by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner herein will
have to be decided at the time of the hearing of the main
Appeal.
UDPR,J& JS,J
I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.A.No.210 of 2023
6. In view of the above, the Interlocutory application is
dismissed.
_______________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
____________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
18thJune, 2024
cbs
UDPR,J& JS,J
I.A.No.2/2023 in Crl.A.No.210 of 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
I.A.No.2 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.210 of 2021
18th June, 2024
cbs
