Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 613 (AP)

Batchu Rangarao v. State of A. P.

2016-11-02

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2016
ORDER : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 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 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. 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." 4-5. Today, at the hearing, the learned Public Prosecutors for both the States submitted that as the grant of bail to the convicts 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 Honble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh (1 supra), wherein it has made the following observations: "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? 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 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. 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 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.