Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
R.Veeraiah.,,, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 31 July, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2013 AP 26
Author: B. Chandra Kumar
Bench: B. Chandra Kumar
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7837 of 2013 Dated 31-7-2013 R.Veeraiah.,,,Petitioner. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Police Station, Garidepally through its Public Prosecutor, High Court....Respondent. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao. Counsel for respondent : Additional Public Prosecutor. <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7837 of 2013 ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to grant anticipatory bail to him in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.5 of 2012 of Garidepally Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner entered into contract for conducting 83 crop demos with an amount of Rs.8,32,407/.- The contract period is from 23-6-2009 to 22-6-2012. The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.2,08,101/- as advance. Subsequently, he claimed Rs.8,32,421/- by submitting bills, vouchers etc., for the 83 crop demos said to have been organized by him and requested for payment. Then, the District Project Director, APCBTMP Nalgonda verified the same and reported that the petitioner has not conducted any crop demos in Nalgonda District during 2009-2010. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner without conducting any crop demos has produced the bogus bills for Rs.8,32,421/-. Accordingly, the authorities concerned ordered to recover Rs.2,08,101/-from the petitioner, which was paid as advance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a subsequent report of the Deputy Director of Agriculture Nalgonda reveals that the petitioner represented that due to non-receipt of bill amount as advance and due to drought condition prevailing in the year 2009-2010, he could not conduct crop demos during 2009- 2010.
Having claimed Rs.8,32,421/-, the petitioner is now contending that demos could not be organized due to drought condition, hence the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is a clear case of cheating.
Anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief. Unless there are special circumstances, such discretionary relief cannot be granted in a casual manner. The Court must examine the following circumstances.
The nature and gravity of offences.
In case of economic offences which are anti social, its implication on the national economy and the programmes of the Government and after effects of such economic offences on the development of nation should be kept in mind. In case of cheating, it has to be seen whether large number of people have been cheated and whether large amount is involved.
It is made clear that even grant of anticipatory bail to other accused cannot be the sole criteria for granting anticipatory bail. The specific role played by each of the accused has to be examined. The Court is bound to consider whether investigating agency would be prevented from seizing any documents or material objects at the instance of the accused. Where in a case it appears that granting of anticipatory bail may hamper further investigation, the Court normally should not grant the relief of anticipatory bail. Of course, where it is clear on the face of the record that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case or where omnibus allegations have been made against the accused who are seeking anticipatory bail along with group of large number of accused, the court may consider their application for anticipatory bail. It is most unfortunate that in many cases, the influential powerful accused are escaping arrest by taking advantage of the relief available under section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the courts have to consider the following circumstances. What is the specific role played by the accused in seeking anticipatory bail, Is there any possibility of accused misusing the liberty granted by Court, whether granting of anticipatory bail would cause fear to the witnesses or whether it places him unjustly in advantageous position, what is the stage of investigation and whether the arrest of the accused is only a mere formality and not at all required. It is made clear that there is no hard and fast rule in considering anticipatory bail applications. The above guidelines are only general guide lines. Each case has to be considered in its own facts and circumstances separately.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
Dated 31-07-2013