Licensed to :- POSANI VENKATESWARLU [Client Code :- 1194]

LAWS(APH)-2016-11-73
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Coram : C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.Jaiswal JJ.
Decided On : November 02,2016
Appeal Type : CRL.A.M.P. No. 1687 of 2016 in CRL.A. No. 607 of 2011
Appellants :
Batchu Rangarao
Vs.
Respondents :
STATE OF A.P.

Advocates :
K.SURESH REDDY

Equivalent Citation :
LAWS(APH)-2016-11-73

Referred Judgement :
DHARAM PAL V. STATE OF HARYANA, [2000 1 CHANLR 74] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, [1977 4 SCC 291] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH ALIAS SHINGARA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, [2005 7 SCC 387]
[REFERRED TO]
K KRISHNA KUMARI VS. DRAPANENI KRISHNA KUMAR, [2013 3 ALT 81] [REFERRED TO]

Referred Act :
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, S.398(1)

JUDGMENT :

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J.
(1.) The nine applicants, who are the accused in Sessions Case No.377 of 2010 on the file of the XI
Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali registered for the offences under
Sections-147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of Bhattiprolu Police
Station, Guntur District, filed Criminal Appeal No.607 of 2011, which was admitted by this Court on
08.6.2011. At the time of filing of the appeal, the appellants have not filed application for grant of bail,
obviously, knowing the convention/practise of this Court that in such appeals arising out of conviction
for the offence under Section-302 IPC and sentencing of the accused for life, this Court seldom grants
bails pending the appeals. However, interim applications for bail were filed by some of the appellants

Page 1 of 4 Copyright © 2022 by Regent Computronics Private Limited - (www.the-laws.com)

Licensed to :- POSANI VENKATESWARLU [Client Code :- 1194]

on special occasions such as performance of obsequies or marriage of their family members.

(2.) The present application is filed by all the appellants based on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291, The appellants have pleaded that they have
been undergoing imprisonment for the last 5 years, besides their being in jail for three months during
the pendency of the trial and that, though the Criminal Appeal filed by them is ready for hearing, the
same could not be taken up as, the Criminal Appeals pertaining to the year 2010 are still being heard.
It is further pleaded that as the disposal of the Criminal Appeal filed by them is likely to take some
more time, they and their family members will be put to a lot of suffering due to their prolonged
incarceration pending the appeal.

(3.) Considering the afore-mentioned averments, this Court adjourned the case to enable the learned
Public Prosecutors for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to ascertain the view of both the
States. The relevant portion of the order passed by us on 26.10.2016, while adjourning the bail
application, is reproduced hereunder: We prima facie feel that it is wholly unjust to incarcerate the life
convicts for long number of years on the ground of pendency of Criminal Appeals. We have,
therefore, called upon the learned Public Prosecutors for both the States to place before under Section
the views of both the States with regard to the request of the convicts, who are serving the sentence for
their release in Criminal Appeals pending for a number of years. Both of them have requested for an
adjournment for reporting on this aspects.

(4.) Today, at the hearing, the learned Public Prosecutors for both the States submitted that as the grant
of bail to the convict(s) pending the Criminal Appeal is always the discretion of the Court, the States
may not have much say in this regard and that, depending upon the facts of each case, the States will
express their views through the Public Prosecutors, considering which, the Court may pass appropriate
orders on bail applications. A situation of this nature arose before the Hon ble Supreme Court in
Kashmira Singh (1 supra), wherein it has made the following observations:

(5.) The practise 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 practise 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 practise 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
Page 2 of 4 Copyright © 2022 by Regent Computronics Private Limited - (www.the-laws.com)
Licensed to :- POSANI VENKATESWARLU [Client Code :- 1194]

imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it? It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the practise
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
where special leave has been granted to the accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence.

(6.) Faced with an identical situation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dharam Pal v. State of
Haryana (2000) 1 Chan LR 74 has framed certain guidelines by classifying the cases and declaring
that the persons who fall under categories-C, D and E and who have undergone a minimum of five
years imprisonment, out of which at least three years must be after conviction, are entitled to bail
pending the appeals. This judgment fell for consideration in Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7
SCC 387, wherein the Supreme Court held that the guidelines issued by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court should not be understood to have laid down an invariable rule to be observed with mathematical
precision. The Supreme Court further observed that the law laid down in Dharam Pal (2 supra) may be
inferentially understood to mean that unless a convict has undergone five years imprisonment, he
should not be released on bail.

(7.) In Velaganti Vedha Raj v. State of A.P. 2013(3) ALT (Crl) 81.(A.P.)(DB), a Division Bench of
this Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that when the said order was passed, Criminal Appeals
of the year 2009 were being taken up for hearing and it will take not less than four to five years for
taking up final hearing of the Criminal Appeal, in which the bail application filed by the appellant was
being considered by the Bench, for being disposed of. On that premise, the Division Bench has
suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant therein.

(8.) As held by the Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh (1 supra), the underlying postulate of the
convention/practise in certain High Courts, including this Court, to deny bail to a person sentenced to
life imprisonment was that the appeal of such person would be disposed of within a reasonable
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 Supreme Court further observed that it would 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 and it would not be possible for the Court to ever compensate him for his
incarceration, which is found to be unjustified.

(9.) One of the main reasons for the pendency of the Criminal Appeals in this Court for long periods is
the acute shortage of the Bench strength. Despite the best efforts being made by this institution, there
is large pendency of Criminal Appeals. Thus, the expectation of early disposal of the Criminal
Appeals, which was the foundation for the convention/practise of this Court not to grant bails in cases
of life imprisonment pending the appeals, is not being realised. It is firmly established by judicial
precedents that personal liberty is an integral part of Article-21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,
as observed by the Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh (1 supra), it would be a travesty of justice if the
life convicts are allowed to be incarcerated beyond a reasonable period in expectation of disposal of
their appeals in future, which remained a great uncertainty. At the same time, Court also cannot ignore
the fact that the requirement of consideration of bail applications in individual cases based on merits
will consume substantial judicial time, which would inevitably impinge upon its time required to be
devoted for disposal of the main Criminal Appeals. As such, we have invited suggestions in this regard
from Mr. K.Suresh Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. T.Niranjan Reddy, learned
Page 3 of 4 Copyright © 2022 by Regent Computronics Private Limited - (www.the-laws.com)
Licensed to :- POSANI VENKATESWARLU [Client Code :- 1194]

senior counsel, who happened to be present in the Court at the hearing, and also the two learned Public
Prosecutors appearing for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

(10.) 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;

(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.

(11.) 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.

(12.) Learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that all the applicants
herein are entitled to be released on bail by applying the afore-mentioned criteria. Accordingly, the
applicants are released on bail subject to the conditions stipulated hereinbefore, in addition to each of
them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the XI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur at
Tenali.

Subject to the above observations and directions, the application is ordered.

Page 4 of 4 Copyright © 2022 by Regent Computronics Private Limited - (www.the-laws.com)