Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kommu Mariya Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 May, 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.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No. 383 of 2022
Between:
Kommu Mariya Babu ... Petitioner
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
its Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Judicature at Amaravati, Guntur District. ... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. D.S. Lakshmi
Counsel for the respondent : The Public Prosecutor
ORDER:
(Per Honourable Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam)
The petitioner/appellant/accused is convicted in S.C No.361 of
2017 by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Gurazala, Guntur District, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life and lodged in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East
Godavari District. Pending his Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2022, filed
the instant petition for granting bail on the ground that he has been
languishing in jail for more than five years i.e., ever since the date of
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
judgement dated 20.03.2019 and thus he is entitled to bail pending
appeal in view of the judgement dated 02.11.2016 of Division Bench
of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh passed in Crl.A.MP No.1687 of
2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011 (Batchu Rangarao Vs. The State of
Andhra Pradesh).
2. It should be noted, the Division Bench of Common High Court
having considered judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including
the one in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab1 has evolved criteria
for granting bail to an appellant who is lodged in prison pending his
criminal appeal. The Division Bench observed thus:
"on considering their valuable suggestions and after a thorough
evaluation of the relevant factors, we are inclined to indicate broad
criteria on which the applications for grant of bail pending the
Criminal Appeals filed against the conviction for the offences,
including the one under Section-302 IPC, and sentencing of the
appellants to life among other allied sentences, are to be
considered. Accordingly, we evolve the following criteria:
(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;
1977(4)SCC 291
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
(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 in (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.
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."
Relying upon the above judgment, the appellant now prays for
bail pending his criminal appeal.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused
had borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and
Rs.25,000/- on 12.02.2014, 16.08.2014 and 22.01.2015 respectively
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
from the deceased and executed three promissory notes in favour of
the deceased. Later, the accused repaid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, but
he had calculated interest of Rs.5/- and demanded for balance
amount. The deceased used to visit the accused on every
alternative day and pester for money. On 29.09.2016, the deceased
called the accused to Pullalacheruvu village for talks, then dispute
arose at Pullalacheruvu, thereafter, the accused asked the
deceased to bring the pronotes along with him to Gottipala village,
Veldurthi Mandal, where maternal aunt and relatives of the accused
are residing. The accused also informed the deceased that he will
secure money from his aunt at Gottipalla village. Later, they both
went to Sirigiripadu village by bus. At the bus stand, the accused
informed that his aunt was not present in the village and said to
return back to their village. The deceased followed the accused and
the accused stopped an auto going towards Yerragondapalem
village. The accused and the deceased boarded an auto, when the
auto crossed Davupalli village, the accused stopped the auto and
asked the deceased to get down. The accused led the deceased to
a distance of 25 yards from main road, picked up a stone and beat
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
on the head of the deceased with the stone. When the deceased
fell down and became unconscious, the accused threw the stone on
the head of the deceased and thereby the deceased succumbed to
death, then the accused reached main road, boarded a lorry and
reached Yerragondapalem village.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, Smt.
D.S.Lakshmi, and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant would argue that
the appellant has good grounds to succeed in the appeal, inasmuch
as he was convicted by the trial Court purely on circumstantial
evidence which is weak and insufficient to complete the chain to
invariably project the guilt of the appellant/accused and therefore, in
order to properly brief his counsel so as to effectively argue his case
in appeal, in the interest of justice, he may be granted bail. Learned
counsel would further submit that the petitioner/appellant has been
languishing in jail for more than six years since the date of judgment
and in the light of the judgment in Batchu Ranga Rao case (supra),
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
he is entitled to bail and his case will not fall within the exceptions
engrafted in the said decision.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hanumant
Vs. State of Madhaya Pradesh2 wherein five golden principles are
reaffirmed as under:
"1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis
of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature.
4. The fact should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
(1992) SCR 1091
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused."
7. As the prosecution has failed to follow the principles laid down
in Hanumant case (supra) and more over, the accused has
completed a period of more than six years seven months and 18
days in jail and as there are fair chances of getting acquittal, the
petitioner now prays for bail.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit
that it was a pre-planned and gruesome murder and the accused
under the pretext of returning the entire amount covered by pronotes
called the deceased and beat on his head with a stone causing
death instantaneously and later he voluntarily surrendered before
the V.R.O. (PW-1) and gave extra judicial confessional statement to
PW-1 which cogently substantiates the prosecution case. The
learned Public Prosecutor further argued that though the petitioner's
case does not fall within some of the exceptions engrafted by the
Division Bench in Batchu Ranga Rao case (supra), however, those
exceptions are only inclusive but not distinct and be all and end all to
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
grant bail. Referring to the said judgment, learned Public Prosecutor
would summit that even according to the said judgment, the criteria
noted in the said judgment cannot be understood as invariable
principles and rather the Bench hearing the bail applications can
exercise its direction for granting or rejecting the bail basing on the
facts involved in that particular case. He would thus conclude that
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it
was perpetrated against a hapless man, bail may not be granted.
9. In the above background, now the point that arose for
consideration of this Court in the present petition is:
"Whether there are any merits in the case to grant bail?"
10. POINT: Learned Public Prosecutor argued that this is a
case of money for gain and the petitioner's case falls within the
exceptions engrafted by the Division Bench in Batchu Rangarao
case (supra). We are unable to agree with his contentions for the
reason that even if the accused called the deceased on the pretext
of repaying of pronotes amount and committed murder, strictly
speaking, that cannot be treated as case of murder for gain. Then,
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
other aspects have to be looked into. The entire case of the
prosecution is pivoting on the circumstantial evidence and more
importantly, on the alleged extra judicial confession made before
P.W.1. The extra judicial confession under law is a weak piece of
evidence and the contention of the appellant/accused is that he
never made such extra judicial confession. Therefore, we find some
strong arguable case for the appellant/accused in the appeal.
Further, the appellant has been languishing in jail for more than 6
years 11 months and 18 days and his conduct in the Central Prison,
Rajamahendravaram, is reported to be satisfactory. Moreover, this
Court can exercise its discretion either for granting or rejecting the
bail based on the facts of each case. This criminal appeal is of the
year 2022 and it is not possible to take up the appeal immediately.
Therefore, considering all the relevant aspects, it is apposite to allow
the petition with conditions.
11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the
petitioner/appellant/accused is ordered to be released on bail, on the
condition of the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Macherla, Guntur District. On his release, the petitioner shall
appear before the Station House Officer, Veldurthi Police Station,
Guntur District, in connection with Crime No.59 of 2016, on every
Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. pending the appeal.
_____________________
DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
___________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
1st May, 2024
cbs
UDPR,J & JS,J
I.A.No.1/2024 in Crl.A.No.383/2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.383 of 2022
1st May, 2024
cbs
