IMPORTANT POINT
Bail cannot be granted in cases where accused has criminal antecedents.

ORDER (COMMON)

The Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A1 in connection with S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of IX 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) read with 149, 212, 216 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 25(1B), 25(1AAA) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (for short the “Arms Act”).

2. I.A.No.1 of 2021 is filed by K.Kishore (LW2) styling himself as victim and cousin of deceased No.1, to permit him to assist learned Assistant Public Prosecutor through his counsel.

3. The case of the prosecution is that in furtherance of previous enmity between A1 and deceased No.2 i.e. Katari Mohan, on 17.11.2015, A1 to A8 assembled in the office premises of A1 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 A1 and A2 wore burkas, carried with a hand bag and sticks handle bag containing vegetables and curry leaves. A1 to A5 entered into Mayor’s chamber, fired deceased No.1 and hacked deceased No.2 who died while undergoing treatment. Basing on the same above crime is registered and numbered as S.C.110 of 2016.

4. Heard Sri P.Veerareddy, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel representing Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the alleged crime. He submits that on 30.11.2015 he voluntarily surrendered before learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Chittoor and since then he is in custody. He submits that the petitioner is none other than the nephew of the Mayor and there are no disputes between them and the prosecution nowhere alleged any mens rea on the petitioner/A1 for committing of such grave offence which clearly shows that the petitioner/A1 was unnecessarily implicated in the crime. He submits that there is delay in registering FIR, which establishes that there are highly influenced persons who are inimical towards the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is languishing in jail since long period, which is in violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as there is no possibility of conducting trial in S.C.No.110 of 2016, the petitioner’s case may be considered for grant of bail. Learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

6. The appellant-accused is in custody for a period of over two years facing charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). Though charge sheet has been submitted as far back as in May 2015, the trial has not commenced. Even charges have not been framed against the appellant-accused. It is stated at the Bar that there are total of 13 cases against the appellant-accused [8 cases for the offence(s) under IPC and 5 cases for the offence(s) under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PMLA”)]. ...Be that as it may, having regard to the period of custody suffered and the fact that the trial has not commenced we are of the view that the appellant-accused should be released on bail. We order accordingly. …

(Sharad T. Kabra v. Union of India, 2018 (14) SCC 493)

7. ...The practice 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 basi