Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Palugulla Rami Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 February, 2023
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Criminal Petition No.597 of 2023
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), by petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.2 of 2023 of Makkuva Police Station, Parvathipuram, registered against the petitioner and one another for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC alleging that the petitioner promised the complainant that he would get a job for the wife of the complainant in civil services and for that purpose he received a total amount of Rs.7,50,199/- credited to the account of his son starting from the date 13.06.2015 to 04.01.2018, but he failed to fulfill the promise.
2. The de facto complainant sent similar complaint to the Commandant, 198 BNCRPF, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 11.06.2021 complaining the same. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 22.07.2021 to the Commanding Officer denying the allegation and if at all any money has been received by his son, he is no way connected to it and that the de facto complainant was also working with the petitioner.
3. The petitioner further stated in the reply that his son and the de facto complainant approached when Rama Krishna to provide a job and both of them, had given money to Rama 2 Crl.P.No.597 of 2023 Krishna and in that connection, the de facto complainant transferred the said amount to the son of the petitioner asking him to transfer the same to Rama Krishna who in turn transferred to the amount to the son of the petitioner, but did not provide job. The learned counsel for the petitioner, thus submitted that the petitioner is also a victim in the hands of the Rama Krishna. He further submitted that since the de facto complainant intends to recover the amount from the son of the petitioner, he planted the petitioner also in the offence just for the purpose of coercively recovering of the amount as the petitioner is working as a government servant. He further submitted that the alleged offence is related to many years back and that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail or such he would put to hardship by losing the job.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the 2nd petitioner/de facto complainant is formally shown in the petition, but is not a necessary party and that it is only due to procedure adopted in other matters where notice should go to the de facto complainant, the same has been followed by overlook.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent submitted that since the offence punishable under section 420 IPC is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court 3 Crl.P.No.597 of 2023 in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another1. The petitioner need not approach this Court seeking this relief and he further stated that the investigation is still pending.
6. In view of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the present case, the police are directed to follow the directions and guidelines of the Supreme Court in the decision in Arnesh Kumar's case (Supra 1) without fail. Giving such liberty to the petitioner to avail the benefit under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the petition is disposed of.
7. Accordingly, the petition is closed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date : 07-02-2023 ASR 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273