Allowed

Sri.Bejjarapu Sathish v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Nov 2022CRLA/557/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No.557 of 2022, the Telangana High Court considered a petition to condone a 1996-day delay in filing an appeal and another to release the appellant on bail. The Court held that the delay should be condoned. Regarding bail, the Court applied Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. to rule that the subsequent sentence runs concurrently with life imprisonment, finding the petitioner had already com

What did the court decide?

The application to condone delay in filing the appeal was allowed; the application to enlarge the petitioner on bail was closed; the Criminal Appeal was subsequently dismissed as not pressed.

Sl.
No

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

10.11.2022

Dr.GRR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022

This application is filed by the petitioner-
appellant-accused to condone the delay of (1996)
days in filing the appeal against judgment dated
22.03.2017 passed in SC No.280 of 2014 by the
Principal Sessions Judge at Adilabad.
Heard Sri N. Avinash, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Section 302 IPC by the Court of Principal
Sessions Judge, Adilabad in SC No.279 of 2014
vide Judgment dated 28.11.2016 and was in jail
since more than five (5) years. He was granted bail
in the said case by this Court vide order dated
17.10.2022 and in compliance of the said orders
when bail bonds were furnished, he was informed
by the Jail Superintendent that as the petitioner was
also convicted in SC No.280 of 2014, his conviction
in the said case would start after his conviction in
SC No.279 of 2014.
Learned counsel further submitted as the

petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment and as
he was informed that appeal was filed against the
judgment, he was under the impression that the
appeal was filed even in the subject case also i.e. SC
No.280 of 2014, but he was unaware of the said
aspect that appeal was not filed in SC No.280 of
2014 due to which there was delay of (1996) days in
filing the present appeal.
Considering the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the delay of
(1996) days in preferring the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2022 is allowed. __________ Dr.GRR, J I.A.No.2 of 2022 This application is filed to enlarge the petitioner-
appellant-accused on bail by suspending the
execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed
against him vide judgment dated 22.03.2017 in SC
No.280 of 2017 by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Adilabad, pending the appeal.
Heard Sri N. Avinash, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Section 302 IPC in SC No.279 of 2017 on the
file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad on
28.11.2016. He was also tried for the offence under
Section 195-A IPC for threatening the witnesses in
SC No.279 of 2014 vide SC No.280 of 2014 and the

petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment and as

he was informed that appeal was filed against the

judgment, he was under the impression that the

appeal was filed even in the subject case also i.e. SC

No.280 of 2014, but he was unaware of the said

aspect that appeal was not filed in SC No.280 of

2014 due to which there was delay of (1996) days in

filing the present appeal.

Considering the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the delay of

(1996) days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2022 is allowed.
__________
Dr.GRR, J
I.A.No.2 of 2022
This application is filed to enlarge the petitioner-

appellant-accused on bail by suspending the

execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed

against him vide judgment dated 22.03.2017 in SC

No.280 of 2017 by the Principal Sessions Judge,

Adilabad, pending the appeal.

Heard Sri N. Avinash, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner was convicted for the offence

under Section 302 IPC in SC No.279 of 2017 on the

file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad on

28.11.2016. He was also tried for the offence under

Section 195-A IPC for threatening the witnesses in

SC No.279 of 2014 vide SC No.280 of 2014 and the

said case also ended in conviction and he was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three (3)
months for the offence punishable under Section
195-A IPC on 22.03.2017. The petitioner was
enlarged on bail in SC No.279 of 2014 on
17.10.2022 as per the guidelines laid down by this
Court inBatchu Ranga Rao and another v. State
of Andhra Pradesh¹,but the Jail Superintendent
was refusing to release him on bail as he had not
obtained bail in SC No.280 of 2014 stating that the said imprisonment would run consecutively after his
completion of sentence in SC No.279 of 2014 and prayed to release the petitioner on bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also
brought to the notice of this Court about the
provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. On a perusal of Section 427 Cr.P.C., it reads as
follows:
“427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a
person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such
sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committedprior to the makingof such

said case also ended in conviction and he was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three (3)

months for the offence punishable under Section

195-A IPC on 22.03.2017. The petitioner was

enlarged on bail in SC No.279 of 2014 on

17.10.2022 as per the guidelines laid down by this

Court inBatchu Ranga Rao and another v. State

of Andhra Pradesh¹**,**but the Jail Superintendent

was refusing to release him on bail as he had not

obtained bail in SC No.280 of 2014 stating that the
said imprisonment would run consecutively after his

completion of sentence in SC No.279 of 2014 and
prayed to release the petitioner on bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also

brought to the notice of this Court about the

provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C.
On a perusal of Section 427 Cr.P.C., it reads as

follows:

“427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for
another offence.
(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence
of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent
conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for
life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life
shall commence at the expiration of the
imprisonment to which he has been previously
sentenced, unless the Court directs that the
subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with
such previous sentence: Provided that where a

person who has been sentenced to imprisonment
by an order under section 122 in default of
furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such

sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an
offence committedprior to the makingof such

order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”
As per the facts of this case, the petitioner was
sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence
under Section 302 IPC vide SC No.279 of 2014 on
28.11.2016 and subsequently, he was tried and
convicted for the offence under Section 195-A IPC
vide SC NO.280 of 2014 on 22.03.2017 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five
years. Section 427 (2) Cr.P.C. is applicable to the
facts of the present case. As such, the subsequent
sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment shall run concurrently with his previous sentence of life
imprisonment. As the petitioner had already
undergone more than five years rigorous
imprisonment, he had completed the sentence
imposed against him for the offence under Section
195-A IPC in SC No.280 of 2014. As such, he is
entitled to be released for his conviction for the
offence under Section 195-A IPC. Accordingly, the I.A. No.2 of 2022 is closed. __________ Dr.GRR, J Crl.A. No.557 of 2022 The Criminal Appeal is dismissed as not pressed vide separate judgment.

order, the latter sentence shall
commence
immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence
of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a
subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term
or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence
shall run concurrently
with such previous
sentence.”

As per the facts of this case, the petitioner was

sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence

under Section 302 IPC vide SC No.279 of 2014 on

28.11.2016 and subsequently, he was tried and

convicted for the offence under Section 195-A IPC

vide SC NO.280 of 2014 on 22.03.2017 and was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five

years. Section 427 (2) Cr.P.C. is applicable to the

facts of the present case. As such, the subsequent

sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment shall
run concurrently with his previous sentence of life

imprisonment. As the petitioner had already

undergone
more
than
five
years
rigorous

imprisonment, he had completed the sentence

imposed against him for the offence under Section

195-A IPC in SC No.280 of 2014. As such, he is

entitled to be released for his conviction for the

offence under Section 195-A IPC.
Accordingly, the I.A. No.2 of 2022 is closed.
__________
Dr.GRR, J
Crl.A. No.557 of 2022
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed as not pressed
vide separate judgment.

Sri.Bejjarapu Sathish v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Bejjarapu Sathish v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Ghouse Khan, Hyd Vs Mrs. Vimal Vasanth Karwande, Hyd and 4 Othrs

Kurama Singa Raju, Khm Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and 3 Othrs

Kota Narasimha Rao and another Vs Kota Venkata Krishna and 5 others

Eshwarlal, Hyderabad., Vs S.Gopal Reddy, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Komati Muthaiah Vs Komati Sai Charan

Joginder Singh, Cyberabad., Vs Rekha Singh, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.