Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Police Station vs Veera Venkata Surya Prudhviraj on 8 September, 2023
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K. Suresh Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6285 of 2023
ORAL ORDER:
Accused No.1 in Crime No.216 of 2023 on the file of Prakash Nagar Police Station, filed the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the said crime.
2. The above crime has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 386 read with Section 34 I.P.C., on the basis of the report lodged by one V. Veera Venkata Surya Prudhviraj.
3. The contents of the report lodged by the defacto complainant, in brief, are thus: The defacto complainant is a native of Rajulapalem, P. Gannavaram Mandal and he has been residing at Rajamahendravaram for the purpose of education of his children. He got acquaintance with accused No.1 since last one year, through his friend by name Kanumuri Subbaraju. Accused No.1 is a resident of Rajamahendravaram and he hails from Pedavegi Mandal of West Godavari District. Accused No.1 told the defacto complainant that one Raja, who is a Corporator in Eluru, is his relative and that the said Raja has Rs.2,000/- notes with him (which were withdrawn from circulation with the declaration of demonetization) and if those currency notes are exchanged with Rs.500/- notes, he will get commission of 10%. Accused No.1 introduced the said person to the defacto complainant in Athidhi Hotel at Eluru and informed the defacto complainant that the said person, who is a Corporator, KSR,J 2 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023 runs an educational institution and is also having partnership in Athidhi Hotel. As the defacto complainant was not having enough money, he informed some of his friends and relatives about the above offer and with a hope that they would get 10% commission, they agreed to give money. Accordingly, the following amounts were arranged by the respective persons - 1) Rs.10,00,000/- by the defacto complainant, 2) Rs.6,50,000/- by Vuyyuri Suryanarayana Raju, 3) Rs.10,00,000/- by Paramkusam Srinivas, 4) Rs.12,00,000/- by Kusampudi Radhakrishnam Raju and 5) Rs.10,00,000/- by Vuyyuri Satyanarayana Raju. On 06.07.2023 at about 6.00 p.m., the defacto complainant and the aforesaid persons handed over the total amount of Rs.48,50,000/- to accused No.1 at the parking place opposite to fruit market besides Alankar Sweets near Eluru Jute Mill Flyover, and when asked him to give their 10% commission along with Rs.2,000/- notes, accused No.1 told them that he would give the money on the next day morning, to which the defacto complainant and the aforesaid four persons did not agree and took back the money from accused No.1. Thereupon, accused No.1 and the persons accompanying him forcibly snatched away the amount of Rs.48,50,000/- from the defacto complainant and threatened to kill him and others and went away in Swift white colour car bearing registration No.AP 39 EL 0969. Thereafter, accused No.1 switched off his mobile phone.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the report lodged by the defacto complainant, the incident took place at Eluru and, as KSR,J 3 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023 such, the police of Prakash Nagar Police Station have no jurisdiction to investigate into the crime. He further contends that as per Section 181 Cr.P.C., the place of trial of the present offence would be Eluru as the alleged incident took place at Eluru. He further contends that the alleged incident took place on 06.07.2023, whereas the report has been lodged on 10.07.2023, which throws any amount of doubt on the veracity of the case of the prosecution. He further contends that no legal cause of action could arise out of an illegal act and the alleged agreement between the defacto complainant and accused No.1 for exchange of Rs.2,000/- notes with Rs.500/- notes on 10% commission being illegal and unauthorized, registration of crime on the report of the defacto complainant is improper. In support of this contention, learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Madras in J. Revathi v. S. Murugesan reported in (2012) 5 LW 229. He further contends that arresting the petitioner as a routine course of action in a case of this nature, which arises out of an illegal transaction, would amount to curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner, besides causing incalculable harm to his reputation and self-esteem, and in order to protect the right to personal liberty, pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner. In support of this contention, he relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 15 SCC 570, to contend that as a presumably KSR,J 4 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023 innocent person, the petitioner is entitled to the right to liberty. Drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, which refers to the factors and parameters that can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is not a case where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that seven witnesses have already been examined in the present crime and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, and prays that, considering all the circumstances, the petitioner may be granted pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would oppose the application, contending that the defacto complainant explained the delay in lodging the report, by stating that after the incident, with a hope that the petitioner will repay the money, he waited for a reasonable time and as there was no response from the petitioner, he gave the report on 10.07.2023. He further contends that though the alleged incident of extortion took place at Eluru, initially, the discussion and agreement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on the alleged exchange of currency, which finally resulted in the alleged offence of KSR,J 5 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023 cheating, took place at Rajamahendravaram and, therefore, police of both Eluru and Rajamahendravaram, have got jurisdiction to investigate into the crime. He further contends that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, that itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and in support of this contention, relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in X v. Arun Kumar C.K. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870. He further submits that the petitioner was also involved in two other crimes, viz., Crime No.263 of 2020 of Eluru III Town Police Station and Crime No.146 of 2020 of Eluru Rural Police Station. He further contends that the investigation is in progress and in view of the nature of the offences, the petitioner may not be granted pre-arrest bail, and thus, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record.
7. The allegations made against the petitioner are that he cheated the defacto complainant and dishonestly induced him to deliver an amount of Rs.48,50,000/- to him on the pretext of exchange of old currency of Rs.2,000/- notes with Rs.500/- notes on commission basis, and that when the defacto complainant and others, who arranged money, went to handover the said amount of Rs.48,50,000/- to the petitioner and receive the commission and old currency, the petitioner told that they would be paid on the next day morning, and when the defacto complainant and others refused to handover the amount of Rs.48,50,000/-, the petitioner and others accompanying him KSR,J 6 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023 forcibly snatched away the said amount from the defacto complainant by putting him and others in fear of death and dire consequences. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged agreement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant being illegal, no legal cause of action could arise out of the said illegal act, it is to be noted that the allegations of forcibly snatching away money from the defacto complainant by putting him in fear of death, would prima facie attract the offence under Section 386 I.P.C. and whether the said amount was proposed to be offered in pursuance of an illegal contract is irrelevant for constituting the ingredients of Section 386 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the alleged agreement and the discussions about exchange of Rs.2,000/- notes with Rs.500/- notes took place at Rajamahendravaram, and thus, the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing the defacto complainant took place at Rajamahendravaram also. In a series of acts culminating in an offence, each step is preparation for the next and in the instant case, the alleged meetings and discussions at Rajamahendravaram is one of the steps towards commission of the alleged offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing the defacto complainant. Even otherwise, if the crime is not to be investigated by a particular police station on account of lack of jurisdiction, it would always remain open for the police who registered the crime to transfer the same to the concerned police, and sitting over the issue of jurisdiction of the police or the place of trial in terms of Section 181 Cr.P.C., while considering the plea of anticipatory bail, is unwarranted. In view of the gravity of the offences KSR,J 7 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023 alleged and having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled, attributing specific role to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences, and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was earlier involved in two other offences, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.
_____________________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J Dt: 08.09.2023 IBL KSR,J 8 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6285 of 2023 Dt: 08.09.2023 IBL