Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Thippe Swamy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 December, 2020
[3240] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2S TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY a : PRESENT: \ THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI . CRIMINAL PETITION No: 5330 OF 2020 Between: 1. S.Thippe Swamy, S/o. Kurmana Gowda, Aged about 40 years, Agriculturist, Kuriganur Village, Siruguppa Taluk, Bellary District, Karnataka State. . 2. Sivasatya Rudrappa, S/o. Kurmana Gowda, Aged about 34 years, Agriculturist, Kuriganur Village, Siruguppa Taluk, Bellary District, Karnataka State. ..Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi ...Respondents Petition under Sections 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, directing the Station House Officer, Kanekal Police Station, Anantapuramu District to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr.No.211 of 2020, in the interest of justice The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5330 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 petitioners/Al and A2 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.211 of 2020 of Kanekal Police Station, Anantapur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'T.P.C.').
2. A complaint was lodged stating that the petitioners got paddy grass tender from the government and asked the de facto complainant and others to supply paddy grass for which they promised to pay reasonable amount. Believing the words of the petitioners, the complainant and two others supplied paddy grass worth of Rs.30,00,000/- about two years ago. But the petitioners failed to pay any amounts inspite of repeated demands. On 21.09.2020 on coming to know about the arrival of the accused at Maremapalli village situated in Karnataka State the complainant and two others went and demanded the petitioners for their payments but they refused to pay the same. The petitioners have also threatened the complainant and others. Basing on the said complaint the present crime is registered.
3. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this _ ; %S incident took place in Karnat&ka State and as such the complaint ll is not maintainable in Andhra Pradesh. He further gubmits that if a the entire allegations in the complaint are taken on jits face value, they do not attract the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of I.P.C. and further all the allegations in the complaint are of civil in nature. As such the present complaint is not maintainable. LL
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that recently Division® Bench of Telangana High Court in Radhika Anil Upadhyaya vs. Principal Secretary and three others vide order dated 25.11.2020 held that if the consequences of the offences are suffered at a different place, than the place where the offence had occurred, even then the Court where the consequences are suffered would certainly have the jurisdiction to try the case and submits that the promise to pay money for supply of the grass has taken place in Andhra Pradesh, as such the complaint is maintainable. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there are clear allegations against the petitioners and investigation is still pending, as such they are not entitled for bail.
6. A bare reading of the complaint reveals that entire complaint revolves upon the fact that the complainant and others have supplied grass for which the petitioners owe an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to them. There is no allegation in the complaint about the dishonest intention and inducement made by the petitioners right from the inception.
7. Taking into consideration the above facts of the case and as the allegations of the complaint prima facie appear to be of civil in nature, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners/A1l and A2 shall be released on bail in|the event of a their arrest in connection with Crime No. 211 of 2020 of Kanekal Police Station, Anantapur District on condition of executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Kanekal Police Station, Anantapur District.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-K. TATARAO. ' SSISTANT REGISPRAR | Oe ppm TINIE .
JITRUE COPY!/ Aye For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, _ | The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg, Anantapuramu Disrict. The Station House officer, Kanekal Police Station, Anantapuramu District. One CC to Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One spare copy arkWwn> SP "33, HIGH COURT Stew LKJ DATED: 03/12/2020 ORDER CRLP.No.5330 of 2020 DIRECTION