logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 696 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Revision Case No. 477 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Parties : Shahid Alias Mohammad Shahid & Others Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Public prosecutor high Court Of AP. Amaravati, Through The Station House Officer, Veldurthy Mandaly Kumool.
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 05-05-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438 & 442 -
Judgment :-

1. The instant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) against the Order dated 15.04.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.207 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2026 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kurnool and consequently to enlarge the Petitioners on bail by suspending the sentence imposed against them.

2. Heard Sri Y.Nagireddy, learned counsel assisted by Sri Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioners herein were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS in C.C.No.1581 of 2025, dated 10.03.2026 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone. Learned counsel would further submit that, impugning the said judgment, the Petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2026 before the Sessions Court, Kurnool. It is further submitted that, during pendency of the criminal appeal, the Petitioners filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.207 of 2026 seeking to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed against them and the same was dismissed by the learned Appellate Judge.

                  Learned counsel would contend that, if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order, a direction may be given to the learned Appellate Judge for speedy disposal of the appeal.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders in this matter.

5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed before this Court would disclose that the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the application filed for suspension of the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the Petitioners on the point that the Petitioners are residents of Uttar Pradesh and it will be very difficult for the State to secure their presence. Admittedly, throughout the trial the Petitioners were in jail.

6. In such circumstances, this Court does not see any warranting circumstances to interfere in the impugned order and as such, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal