ORDER :

I.A.No.2 of 2021 IN Crl.A.No.820 of 2016

1. The petitioner, who is accused No.6, filed the present application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

2. The petitioner/A-6 was tried in Special Sessions Case No.45 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act, Kadapa for the offencess punishable under Section 302, 201, 379, 120-B and 109 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

3. Vide judgment, dated 11.7.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 120-B, 201 and 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120-B(1) I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and no separate sentence is passed for the offence Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

4. The only ground on which the present application seeking bail came to be filed is that the petitioner has completed 5 years of actual sentence after conviction by the trial Court and in view of the Judgment in Batchu Rangarao & others v. State of A.P., 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P)., he would be entitled for bail. It is also informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other accused were already released on bail applying Batchu Rangarao’s case.

5. The fact that the petitioner has completed 5 years of actual sentence after his conviction is not in dispute. The Division Bench of this court in Batchu Rangarao & others supra, held as under:

“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.

6. 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.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor states that the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of