Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C.Venkatesh Babu vs State Of Ap on 7 August, 2019
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4522 of 2019
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Sections 438 Cr.P.C., seeking bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.34 of 2019 on the file of Molakalacheruvu Police Station, Chittoor District. The accused are charged of an offence under Sections 466, 471 and 403 IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset, states that second accused/petitioner No.2 has already been arrested, therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw the bail application as far as 2nd petitioner/Accused No.2 is concerned. He makes an endorsement to that effect.
Permission as sought for is accorded and the criminal petition against A.2 is dismissed as withdrawn.
As far as petitioner No.1/A.1 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a Doctor, who is in-charge of medical centre and he is authorized holder for the two accounts that are mentioned in the complaint. It is his contention that the accused was only withdrawing money as per the instructions of his senior namely the complainant. He submits that from a reading of 2 the complaint it is clear that the alleged offence took place over a period of time. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the complainant was very negligent in performing his duties and that it is virtually impossible for him not to realize that a forgery was being committed in his own office. He therefore, submits that the entire allegation that was levied against the accused/petitioner is false. He also submits that the second account from which the amounts supposedly withdrawn are joint and it is impossible for forgery to take place over a period ranging from May, 2018 till August, 2019. He, therefore, submits that allegations made against the present petitioner/A.1 is absolutely false and there is no unauthorized withdrawal.
In reply to this, learned Public prosecutor submits that the allegation made is very specific. He states that clear details of the cheques and the amounts are given. As per the complainant, about 16 cheques were utilised with a forged signature of the complainant to withdraw the amount. He submits that the investigation is still in progress and in view of the seriousness of the allegation, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
This Court also notices that five cheques in one account and 11 cheques in another account are the subject matter of the complaint. A specific allegation made is that the signature of the complainant, who is the authorized 3 signatory, were forged on these instruments. This is a matter which requires to be investigated and probed. The amounts involved in this case are public funds meant for the use and operation of a primary health centre. This Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that the entire complaint is foisted or it is false. The details of the cheques and dates of withdrawal are given. This is a matter that needs to be investigated further.
In view of the seriousness of the allegations and as public funds are involved in this matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner/A.1 is not entitled to anticipatory bail as prayed for.
Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed in so far as petitioner/A.1 is concerned.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date : 07.08.2019 KLP