Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Muthyala Venkata Narayana Prabhu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 December, 2020
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5350 OF 2020
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/A3 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.237 of 2017 of Proddatur Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 506, 120-B, 195-A, 477-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').
2. The case of prosecution is that a complaint was lodged on 09.08.2017 stating that members of Rotary Club and Rotary Mid Town Club approached the complainant and stated that they intend to construct houses to the poor and as they are not having site they requested the complainant to donate land. While donating land the complainant has put a condition of utilizing the land only for the purpose of constructing houses and allotting them to the poor people below poverty line and not to misuse the land for other purpose. By 2001 the Rotary Club and Rotary Mid Town Club have constructed the houses by utilizing the funds of Rotary International Club.
3. The further case of the complainant is that the houses were not allotted to the people living under below poverty line. But in 2 violation of the condition which was imposed in the gift deed allotted, the said houses to other persons. The complainant approached the members of Rotary Club and asked them about the said allotment for which there was no reply from them. It is stated that contrary to the terms and conditions they have allotted houses to rich people. Basing on the said complaint present crime is registered.
4. Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1999 the land was donated and resolution was passed way back between 2000 and 2002. As per the resolution some people were identified as beneficiaries and subsequently office bearers at the relevant point of time have executed gift deeds. As far as this petitioner is concerned he has executed one gift deed. The allotment of houses and execution of agreements took place in the year 2002 but the accused executed gift deeds from 2007 to 2018, with a delay of several years. He further submits that if at all there is any violation of the terms of the gift deed and the complainant is aggrieved by the same the remedy is to go for a civil suit. He also submits that though punishment for the said offence is below seven years, Police failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Further they are trying to arrest the petitioner. He submits that even in the remand report the only 3 allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has executed a registered gift deed on 25.07.2018 in favour of B. Rathnalu without holding any official position with the Rotary Club after registering the case and the same is under investigation. Except that there are no other allegations against him. Further the petitioner is a business man and if he is arrested it will have effect on him. Hence, his case may be considered for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is still in progress and notices were served on the accused under Sections 41A and 91 of Cr.P.C. The accused were also asked to produce some of the records which are in their custody. But, the accused neither appeared before the Police nor produced the records.
7. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received any notice. Further he points out at the remand report and submits that the entire records are seized and are in the custody of the Police. He further submits that as entire material is with the Police, even if bail is granted to the petitioner there is no likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the investigation process, if any pending.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a civil litigation where the whole dispute revolves around the allotment of houses and execution of gift deeds in violation of the condition imposed by the donor, a perusal of the remand 4 report reveals that there are certain sale deeds which are executed to the other persons who are not beneficiaries and the investigation is yet to be completed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
9. However, the punishment for the above said offences is up to seven years and though learned Public Prosecutor submits that they have issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the same was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the respondent-Police are directed to issue fresh notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner and also follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1 scrupulously.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J Date :03.12.2020 IKN 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 5 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI (Disposed of) CRIMINAL PETITION No.5350 of 2020 03.12.2020 IKN 6 47-5447 of 2020 A8 and A9 As per the remand report A8 and A9 jointly executed gift deeds. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the beneficiaries list of the year, 1999 they have executed gift deeds. The petitioners are not connected with the offence as alleged. 48 - 4350 of 2020 - A3