GUNDA KOTESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Muniraja and Sri Ramakrishna, Counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

(2.) This application is moved under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The mother of Gunda Koteswararao, the appellant in the criminal appeal, Gunda Koteswaramma moved the present application praying for suspension of the execution of sentence imposed against the petitioner by judgment dated 5-7-2004 in S.C. No. 47 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole and release him on bail stating that the petitioner is confined in Central Prison, Rajahmundry. It is not in controversy that a prior application for similar relief in Crl.M.P. No. 5045 of 2004 was moved on behalf of the petitioner-appellant-accused by Gunda Anjaneyulu., the father of the petitioner and in the said Crl.M.P. No. 5045 of 2004, on 12-7-2004 while admitting the criminal appeal and posting the same for final hearing immediately after Dasara Vacation of 2004, the learned Judge made the following order:

(3.) There is clear distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. Thus, suspension of execution of sentence be ordered only in exceptional circumstances, though, normally bail may have to be granted to the accused pending appeal, especially, when he was on bail during the trial and findings in the order and nature of offences and quantum of sentence warrant exercise of discretion in favour of the accused. Grant of bail pending appeal be the normal rule and continuance in jail pending appeal be an exception. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard except stating that the exercise of such power must depend upon sound judicial discretion. Guidelines in this regard cannot be laid down since the same may be only illustrative and cannot be exhaustive at any rate. On the maintainability of second application or successive applications in Babu Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh while dealing with Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (28 of 1970) while holding that the rejection of bail application would not operate as a bar for fresh application giving more details and developments, for consideration, the Apex Court observed as under: