Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 281 (AP)

Mutasim Billa v. State of A. P.

2008-04-18

G.BHAVANI PRASAD

body2008
ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the 19th accused in P.R.C. No. 7 of 2008 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, which arose out of Crime No. 198 of 2007 of Gopalapuram police station. 2. The merits of the main case are not the subject matter of this petition, wherein the petitioner aged about 21 years and lodged in Central Prison, Cherlapalli, Ranga Reddy District, as an under-trial prisoner claims the facility of being permitted to attend to his practical and theory examines as a student of III year B.E. (Civil) in the Deccan College of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims that his second semester practical examinations are scheduled to be held from 15-4-2008 to 16-4-2008, while his theory examinations are scheduled to be held from 24-4-2008 to 17-6-2008. As he was unable to have his bail application considered in the meanwhile, he sought for his release forthwith to enable him to appear for the said examinations. 3. For determination of the question, authenticated information was sought for from the Principal of the College concerned and the Principal in his letter dated 17-4-2008 addressed to the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is eligible to appear for supplementary examination to be held in April/May 2008, but the conditions stipulated by the Osmania University for appearing for regular examinations were not being satisfied by the petitioner till 29-2-2008. The Principal also stated that if the Court gives attendance to him from 5-3-2008 to 5-4-2008, the petitioner is expected to get the requisite attendance for appearing in the regular examinations, which are also scheduled to be held in April/May 2008. 4. Sri S. R. Sanku, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks protection of the academic interest and the future of the petitioner, the damage to which will become irreversible, if he were to be denied an opportunity to write the theory examinations because of the pendency of the criminal case, even if he were to be acquitted honourably later. The learned counsel also submitted that so far as practical examinations are concerned, they can be conducted by the college concerned at any time even later, which may cause only some inconvenience to the petitioner, but not any irreparable injury or damage. The learned counsel also submitted that so far as practical examinations are concerned, they can be conducted by the college concerned at any time even later, which may cause only some inconvenience to the petitioner, but not any irreparable injury or damage. Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, stated that as per his instructions, the petitioner does not appear to have even applied for Hall Ticket so far leave alone fulfilling the conditions for issuance of Hall Ticket due to which the request becomes redundant and superfluous. 5. However, it is seen from the letter of the Principal that the petitioner is eligible to appear for the supplementary examination to be held in April/May 2008 and Sri S.R. Sanku, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has backlog to be cleared both in his first year and second year subjects which he can clear by appearing for the supplementary examinations. Even in respect of the regular examinations, It is for the College or the University concerned to ultimately consider whether he becomes eligible or not for appearing for the said examinations. Therefore, irrespective of the merits of the case and the right of the petitioner to be released on bail or his liability to continue to be in judicial custody till the conclusion of the case, some reasonable arrangement has to be made to enable him to appear for such examinations for which he is permitted by the college and the university concerned. Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, has stated on instructions that they have no objection to ensure such assistance to enable the petitioner to write such examinations if he were issued a Hall Ticket by the concerned authorities. 6. Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, has stated on instructions that they have no objection to ensure such assistance to enable the petitioner to write such examinations if he were issued a Hall Ticket by the concerned authorities. 6. Therefore, if the petitioner or any body representing him were to produce before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli Ranga Reddy District, where the petitioner is in custody as an under trial prisoner, the Hall Ticket for any supplementary or regular examinations to which the petitioner can attend and also furnish the timetable/the schedule of such examinations specifying further the particulars of the examinations to be taken by the petitioner, the dates and the timings of the same, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli, Ranga Reddy District, shall ensure the petitioner appearing for such examinations by providing necessary security for his being taken to and brought back from the place of such examinations. The authorities conducting such examinations shall permit the persons standing in guard for the petitioner to be by his side even while he is writing such examinations. 7. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly and his order shall have no relevance to the request of the petitioner to be released on bail pending trail, which is stated to be pending.