Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Godavarthi Rambabu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATE: WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE : PRESENT: - THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3206 OF 2021 Between: Godavarthi Rambabu, S/o.Sri G.Ramakrishna Rao, Hindu, aged 59 years, R/o.Annapurna Sadanam, Near Golden Temple, Sriramnagar, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500 089, Telangana. Petitioner/A-4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Station House Officer, Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, West Godavari-District, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi. Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner/A-4 on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.107/2021 Dt.04-06-2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Narasapuram Rural Police Station, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Chidambaram, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following; ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3206 of 2021 ORDER:-
This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {for short "Cr.P.C."}) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A4 in the event of his arrest im connection with Crime No.107 of 2021 of Narasapuram Rural Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 465, 471, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 1.P.C.} and read with 38(2)}(4} of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (for short 'AP MACS Act'.
2. The case of prosecution is that a report was lodged by the District Cooperative Officer (1/C) West Godavari District, Eluru wherein it was alleged that an enquiry under Section 29 of AP MACS Act was ordered into the constitution, working and financial conditions of Vemuladeevi Mutually Aided Agricultural Cooperative Society with special reference to the irregularity notice in enquiry report and final audit report of the society for the last five years by authorizing Smt.K.Krishna Sruthi, DR/OSD, DCCB Limited, Kakinada as an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and while submitting the inquiry report discussed certain major irregularities occurred in PPC transactions, cash payments, interest on FDs/Own fund loans/savings bank accounts in violation of Byelaw provisions etc. and the Inquiry Officer recommended criminal action against the President, the then Secretary (I/c) under Section 38(2) of the AP MACS Act read with coon aan Sections 403 and 405 IPC for violation of provisions of Section {d) of the Actm Vtekaw Bi,2(d} of the Soceity and misappropriation of funds and against Smt. Meka Laxmi Prasoona, Ex-president and Sri G. Rambabu, Ex-Secretary ie. the petitioner herein under Section 38(2) of the AP MACS Act for violation of Section 10 of the AP MACS Act for misappropriation of funds of the society for Rs.82,16,981,43 paise as mentioned in the report. Basing on the said report, the present crime is registered in which the petitioner is arrayed as A4.
3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the inquiry report the Inquiry Officer has recommended for action against the petitioner under Section 38(2) of the AP MACS Act and except that there are no allegations which attract provisions of LP.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is innocent but he was falsely implicated in the crime for political reasons. He further submits that the petitioner who acted as Secretary had retired long ago. He submits that no case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offence. Hence, the petitioner's case for grant of pre-arrest bail may be considered.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner along with other accused has misappropriated huge amount to a tune of Rs.82,16,981.43 paise.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail.
eons ny
6. While considering an application seeking bail, the Court has to take into consideration, i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest 1s made, ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iti. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vil. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case, The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution becatise over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
villi. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, mo prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
' ix, The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."
(Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors')
7. Admittedly the petitioner is not working in the Society at present and necessary documentary evidence is not in the custody PAIR 2011 8C 312 = MANUISCA O21 2010 To, of the petitioner. Hence, the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, however on certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/A4 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.107 of 2021 of Narasapuram Rural Police Station, West Godavari District, on condition of executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and he shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. If the petitioner violates any of these conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of bail.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
a, a we Sd/-G.SrinivasaReddy~ ASSISTANT REGISTRAF TRUE COPY// co SECTION OFFIC wok Godavari District.
One CC to Sri. K Chidambaram, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy.
WO & Oh ER ae OMA The Station House Officer, Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, West HIGH COURT LK,J DATED:23/06/2021 ORDER CRLP.N0.3206 of 2021 ALLOWED