r1-` lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AM ARAVA ~/ FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTl I- CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8457 OF 2024 Betwee n : sriram chandra sekhar @ chintu, s/o. subrahmanyam Naidu, aged 45 years, R/o. D. No. 28-761/1, Kannaiah Naidu Colony, Chittoor Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. ...petit-loner/Accused No.1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Publ'IC Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. 2. V. Satheesh, S/o. Subrahmanyam Naidu, aged 29, R/o. D.No.4-20, set'ln Thangal, Kurchivedu, Naras'lngarayanipetta, Ch-lttoor District. Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court order dated 20.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.8457 of 2024. ...LW-1 pet'ltion under sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023 (Old Provision Under sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C) is filed praying that in the Circumstances Stated in the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail pending investigation, inquiry and trial in sc No.110 of 2016 on the file of the court Of lX AddI. District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor which arose Out Of Crime No.130 of 2015 of I Town Police Station, Ch'lttoor; The petition coming on for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds of criminal petit-Ion and upon hearing the arguments of sri D.Purnachandra Reddy] Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2; = i++ I+Bt === +=PEHE El APHCO10527112024 E=ELE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIIVIINAL PETITION NO: 8457/2024 Betwee n : Sriram Chandra Sekhar @ Chintu [3331] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. P SAI SURYA TEJA The Court made the following: The Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking regular ba-ll to the petitioner/A1-in connection with S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of leamec; il Additional District Judge, Chittoor (transferred from learned lX Additional / District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor) arising out of Crime No.130 of 2015 of chittoor I Town Police Station, Chittoor District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 324,120(B),109 read with tl-- I -`<® JE-- Page2of7 SRS,` CrI.P.No.8457 of 2024 Jrty 149, Sections 212, 216 and 201 of the lndl'an penal code, 1860 (for short tlPC') and Sections 25(1A), 25(1AAA), 25(1B)(a), 25(1B)(c), 27(3) and 30 of the Indian Arms Act,1959 (for short the {Arms Act'). 2. This is the seventh bail petition filed bythe petitioner. 3. The case of the prosecution is that in furtherance of previous enmity between Al and deceased No.2 i.e. Katari Mohan, on 17.ll.2015, Al to A8 assembled in the office premises of Al and, in pursuance of their plan A6 received information over phone about the presence of deceased Nos.1 and 2 in the Mayor's chamber, Municipal Corporation, Chittoor through LW36 who was specially employed to pass on the information about movement of deceased Nos.1 and 2. On receipt of said information Al and A2 wore burkas, and carried handbags and sticks. Al to A5 entered into the Mayor's chamber, fired deceased No.1 and hacked deceased No.2 who died while undergoing treatment. Based on the same above crime is registered and numbered as S.C.110 of 2016. The petitioner surrendered before the court below on 30.ll.2015 and since then he has been in jail. 4. Heard Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel representing sri p.saI' Surya Teja, learned counsel, respondent No.2-complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is J`'|-ipaCent. The son of the deceased had falsely implicated him l'n the case. He submI'tS that the Petitioner Surrendered on 30.ll.2015 and since then, he has been in jaI'l for nearly nI|ne and half years. The trial of SC is almost completed. L.W.130 I.O, has to be examined, however, the prosecution has been dodging the trial. He submits that this court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court time directed the TrI'aI Court to complete the trial expeditiously by fixing a period. €2Z7jf ``` -`-`. Page3of7 SRS,J CrI.P.No.8457 of 2024 I, However, the trial is yet to be completed. The petitioner is not responsible i:c,-: the delay l'n the trial. Learned counsel submits that except LW 130, I.O., all other witnesses were examined. The petitioner, who was imposed life imprisonment in S.C.No.330 of 2010, on the file of learned lX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, preferred appeal v,'de CrI.Appeal No.1094 of 2018. The said appeal was allowed by judgment dated 13.ll.2024 and the petitioner was acquitted. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the defacto complal'nant submits that the petitioner was convicted in two other cases. Recently, the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case regl'stered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner assaulted a public servant. Accused No.23, the petitioner's close associate, who supplied a pistol to the petitioners threatened two Investigating Officers. He submits that the Honlble Supreme Court refused to grant bal'l to accused No.6 and directed the Trial Court to complete the trl'al within six months. There is no safety for the victiins. The conduct of the petitioner needs to be considered, before granting bail. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and would contend that the petitioner has involved in other crimes. He submits that the trial is at the fag end. The petitioner may abscond if he is granted bail. 8. The pol'nt for consideration l's, whether the petitioner is entitled to a regular bail? 9. Before proceeding further, it is apt to extract the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8523/2024 dated 09-9-2024). 7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is \\\ , frowned upon as it may not give sufficI-ent time tO Prepare for the I. I-=r-f3,-=Zst Page4of7 ` SR| Crl.P.No.8457 of 202\ J7 defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 8. lt is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in "The Ballad of Reading Gaol", wrote the following poignant lines while being incarcerated: 'tl know not whether Laws be right, Or whether Laws be wrong; All that we know who be in jail ls that the wall is strong; And that each day is like a year, A year whose days are long." Eventually, the Apex Court granted bail to the accused in the case -r:`,c,ristered for the offence under See 302 IPC. 10. The HonJbleApex Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)1, observed as under: "21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry's response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged jn jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 Iakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials." 22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of 'tprisonisation" a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State reported in 1993 Cri LJ 3242, as "a radical transformation" whereby the prisoner: 12023 INSC311 '-its I QDQ i Crl.P.No.845`-;I i,:-I. _, I/ uloses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture Of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes." 23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to Crime, "aS Crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the Crime, more honour is paid to the criminal" (also see Donald Clemmer's lThe Prison Community' published in 1940). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic Strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering Of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienat-Ion from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially -ln cases, where special laws enact stringent Provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily." ll. No doubt, in the case at hand, the tr'lal is at the fag end. However, as seen from the docket proceedings filed along with the bail application and case dairy of the sessions case, the examination of L.W.130, is being adjourned from o4.12.2024 till 29.01.2025. lt is also pertinent tO mention here that the learned sessions Judge is conscious of the direction issued tO the Hon'ble Apex Court to complete the trial of the case Miscellaneous Applicatir=6'. 2145 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2022, wherein A6 is the appellant. 12. The Apex Court granted six months front the date Of receipt Of the COPY of the order and further indicated that no further extension of time would be given. 13. The contention of the learned senior counsel and learned A.P.P. regarding criminal antecedents, the petitioner was initially convicted in a --------.` e``\ i!i=- Page 6of7 S\\ Crl.P.No.8457 of 20; r/ S.a.No.330 of 2010, on the file of learned lX Additional District and sessions I;;jf_I,i. Chittoor, however, the conviction was set asl-de in crl.Appeal No.1094 of 2018, by judgment dated 13.ll.2024. 14. As noted supra, except I.O., all other witnesses were examined. Keeping I-n VI-eW the incarceration of the petitioner in jail for nearly n,-ne years and two months, this court deems it approprI'ate tO enlarge the petitl'oner/AI on bail on certain conditions. 15. Accordingly this criml-nal petition Its allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail jn connection wI-th S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of vl Additional District and sessions Judge, Chittoor arising out of crime No.130 of 2015 of Chittoor I Town Police station, chittoor District, on executl'ng a self- |>::,-ld for Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh) with two suretI-eS Of ll'ke Sum each to the ``,T,i:iSfaCtl'On Of IV AddI Judl-cial Magl'strate of First class, Chittoor. The Petitioner shall not enter chittor town except the day/days on which his presence I'S required in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of vI Addl District and Sessions Judge, chittoor till the judgment is pronounced jn the above Case. The petitioner shall I-nform hl's whereabouts to the learned superintendents of poll'ce chI®ttOOr and TI'ruPathi and Share Phone number and live location. The petitioner shall not threaten or influence the wI'tneSS. lf the petitioner involves in any other crime, after release on bail, it I-s open tO the prosecution to take approprI'ate Steps. Consequently, mI'SCellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand •==;`=.sod. //TRUE COPY// SD/-B.CHITTI JOSEPH A SsS:SarcsETR:A R For A-.Iu I ,+N I r`[\JIO I l`^l` I/ To, 1. The IX Distrl-ct and Sessions Judge, Chittoor 2. The IVAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. 3. The VI Additional District Sessions Judge, Chittoor 4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor. 5. TheStation House Officer, I Town Police Station, Chittoor 6. V. Satheesh, S/o. Subrahmanyam Naidu, R/o. D,No.4-20, Setin Thangal, Kurchivedu, Narasingarayanipetta, chittoor District. (by RPAD) 7. One CC to Sri. D.Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High ®Court ofAP [OUT] 9. The Superintendent of police, chittoor. 10. The Superintendent of police, Tirupati ll. One CC to Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 12. One spare copy MM |® ` ..- -++; +fu +x~,ct-``. . •-Th E€B 1\15 9T=: I-' ='- z;I.,., HIGH COURT SRS,J DATED :07/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8457 of 2024 ALLOWED