Telangana High Court
Mr. Mohammed Ghouse vs The State Of Telangana on 26 November, 2020
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5882 OF 2020
ORDER:
This is an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in Crime No.717 of 2020 on the file of Neredmet Police Station, Malkajgiri, Rachakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
2. Heard Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. In the complaint dated 21.10.2020, it is alleged that the de facto complainant frequently visited Green Bawarchi Hotel at Yousufguda where his friend Mohammed Ghouse i.e A- 1 and his father A-2 used to come. They have introduced themselves to de facto complainant saying that they are employees of Railway Department and made him to believe to provide Junior Accountant job in Railway Department and for the said purpose they have demanded him to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. The de facto complainant believed them in good faith. They have called the de facto complainant to Vinayaknagar, Neredmet on 13.01.2020 and accordingly, the de facto complainant paid Rs.8 lakhs out of the agreed amount of Rs.10 lakhs. The de facto complainant further agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs after joining the job. It is further 2 alleged in the complaint that thereafter, both the accused including the petitioner herein have not responded to the de facto complainant and they have not attended the phone calls made by the de facto complainant. They did not provide job to him as promised. Then, on enquiry, the de facto complainant came to know that petitioner and his father have cheated so many people and cases were also registered against them in Banjara Hills Police Station. Thus, the petitioner and his father cheated the de facto complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation made by the de facto complainant in the complaint stating that he has paid an amount of Rs.8 lakhs is not believable as the said amount is paid without obtaining any receipt and without there being any document. As per the complaint dated 21.10.2020, the de facto complainant is in the construction business and he is the resident of Neredmet. The allegation of the de facto complainant that frequently he is visiting Green Bawarchi Hotel at Yousufguda which is 23 kms away from Neredmet is not believable. There is no inducement by the petitioner and his father. There are no cases registered against the petitioner and his father in the Banjara Hills Police Station. There is a civil dispute between petitioner, his father and the de facto complainant. Because of the said dispute, the de facto complainant implicated the petitioner and his father in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is not an accused in Crime No.50 of 2017 and Crime 3 No.644 of 2016 as alleged in the remand report. Petitioner is accused in Crime No.471 of 2017.
5. This Court vide order dated 20.11.2020 and 24.11.2020 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to get specific instructions with regard to stage of investigation and also relationship between Smt.Bodi Sarita w/o.Bodi Rajesh, Rajesh Yadav alias Raju, defendants in O.S.No.482 of 2017, plaintiffs in O.S.No.98 of 2018 and Polkampally Sai Kumar, the de facto complainant herein. Today, on instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no relationship between Smt.Bodi Sarita w/o.Bodi Rajesh, Rajesh Yadav alias Raju and Polkampally Sai Kumar.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that there are no cases pending against the petitioner and his father in the Banjara Hills Police Station. Petitioner is accused in Crime No.471 of 2017 and the said crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 448, 506, 323 r/w 34 IPC at Banjara Hills Police Station. Petitioner is not accused in Crime No.473 of 2017.
7. The above said aspects would reveal that petitioner and his father have induced the de facto complainant stating that they will provide Junior Accountant job in Railway Department and for the said purpose, they have demand an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. The de facto complainant has paid an amount of Rs.8 lakhs and agreed to pay the balance amount of 4 Rs.2 lakhs after joining the job. Thus, there are specific overt acts against the petitioner herein and A-2. As discussed above, both A-1 and A-2 have induced the petitioner and received an amount of Rs.8 lakhs from him on the province that they will provide job to him in Railways. In fact, the de facto complainant is not expected to believe A-1 and A-2 and pay the said amount to them, since in the Railways, for any appointment, there is a procedure i.e., notification, written test, interview. Even then, the de facto complainant has paid the said amount of Rs.8 lakhs. However, at the same time, the accused has expected to induce innocents by promising them to provide job and received amount from them. A-2, father of A-1 was arrested by the police on 07.11.2020 and he was enlarged on bail vide order dated 09.11.2020.
8. Considering the said aspects and also the fact that there are specific overt acts against the petitioner herein, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A-1 herein.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 26.11.2020 dv