High Court For The State of Telangana MAIN CASE: Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018 Proceeding Sheet Sl. No. Date Order Office Note

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
MAIN CASE: Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
20-11-2023 KL,J & SKS,J
I.A.No.01 of 2023
(per Hon’ble KL,J)
Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner / accused
No.2 and Mrs.Shalini Saksena, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor.
This Interlocutory Application is filed to

grant bail to the petitioner / accused No.2.
The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in

S.C.No.31 of 2016. Vide impugned judgment
dated 17-07-2018, learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicted him for
the offences punishable under Sections 302
120-B, 379 and 201 r/w.34 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
He is in jail from 17-07-2018.
Trial Court recorded conviction basing

on the following three (3) circumstances:
i. Last seen theory deposed by PW-3.
2
Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018
ii. Extra judicial confession made by

accused No.2 before PW-6.
iii. PW-12 is panch witness for recovery of
cell phone as well as Rs.5,000/-.
PW-3 in his chief-examination deposed

that on 04-01-2013, Accused Nos.1 and 2 and
the deceased went in a car in the evening at
about 4.00 P.M., to search for a building.
However, during cross-examination, he has
categorically admitted that he went to Police
Station on 04-01-2013, Police informed him
that the deceased went along with Accused
Nos.1 and 2 and he came to know about the
said fact only through them.
PW-6 turned hostile. PW-12 is panch

witness to the recovery of cell phone and
Rs.5,000/-. In his chief-examination he has
deposed that A-1 led them to the house of A-2
at Jeemetla, who confessed about the offence
and Police seized one cell phone and cash of
Rs.5,000/- under a cover of panchanama.
PW-13 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy

over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.14
is Post Mortem Examination Certificate,
wherein he opined that the cause of the death
3
Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018
of the deceased is cardiac arrest and vagal

infection.
Prima facie, there are contradictions with

regard to last seen theory and also with
regard to cause of the death of the deceased.
In the light of the same, matter requires
examination.
Several grounds and contentions raised

by the petitioner can be considered at the
time of hearing of the appeal finally.
In Bachu Rangarao Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh1 a Division Bench of this
Court evolved 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)
1
2016 (3) ALT (Crl.)505
4
Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018
supra;
The offences relating to rape coupled
with murder of minor children
dacoity, murder for gain, kidnapping
for ranson, 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.”
In the light of the aforesaid discussion,

according to us, the case of the petitioner falls
in the aforesaid criteria evolved in Bachu
Rangarao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
he is entitled for bail.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion,

this application is allowed granting interim
bail to petitioner / Accused No.2 on his
furnishing personal bond for Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty five thousands) with two (2)
sureties for the like sum each to the
satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. During the bail
period, he shall not involve in any criminal
5
Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018
activities.
I.A.No.2 of 2023
At request of learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, list on 04-12-2023.
________
KL,J
_________
SKS,J
PN

High Court For The State of Telangana MAIN CASE: Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018 Proceeding Sheet Sl. No. Date Order Office Note

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Court For The State of Telangana MAIN CASE: Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018 Proceeding Sheet Sl. No. Date Order Office Note

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Court For The State of Telangana MAIN CASE: Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018 Proceeding Sheet Sl. No. Date Order Office Note

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

MAIN CASE: Crl.A.No.2904 of 2018

Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned

This Interlocutory Application is filed to

The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in

Trial Court recorded conviction basing

ii. Extra judicial confession made by

PW-3 in his chief-examination deposed

PW-6 turned hostile. PW-12 is panch

PW-13 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy

of the deceased is cardiac arrest and vagal

Prima facie, there are contradictions with

Several grounds and contentions raised

In Bachu Rangarao Vs. State of

2. Grant of bail in favour of

3. in the following categories of

4. While granting bail, the two

In the light of the aforesaid discussion,

In the light of the aforesaid discussion,

You might also like