Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Lokanadham D Lokanadham vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 October, 2019
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5779 of 2019
ORDER:
In this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner/A.4 seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.157 of 2019 of Tirumala I Town P.S, Tirupathi Urban registered for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The investigation is stated to be pending.
2. On the detailed complaint of the Assistant Vigilance & Security Officer, Vigilance Wing, T.T.D, the Station House Officer, Tirumala I Town P.S, Tirupathi Urban registered the above crime for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The sum and substance of allegations is that petitioner/A.4 collected amount from pilgrim party consisting of six persons came from Bangalore with ticket No.2148452 and on enquiry by the Vigilance authorities, the head of the pilgrim party Poorna Venkata Dantheswara Rao of Bangalore stated that he came in contact with the petitioner/A.4 though cell No.9701699909, through one of his relatives and his relatives requested the petitioner/A.4 to arrange break darshan for six persons. Accordingly, the petitioner/A.4 brought a letter purportedly given by Sri A. Joga Rao, M.L.A., Parvathipuram and applied the letter in J.E.O's office, Tirumala. He further stated that on 21.07.2019 his officer Koteswara Rao came to Tirumala for darshan. At that time, petitioner/A.4 arranged all facilities including darshan and petitioner/A.4 collected Rs.18,000/- at the rate of Rs.3,000/- from 2 each pilgrim and he also collected Rs.57,600/- from Koteswara Rao by giving Sesha vastram.
3. Denying the complaint allegations as false, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4 submits that except arranging the letter from the Hon'ble M.L.A to facilitate dharshan to the six pilgrims who happened to be known persons, the petitioner/A.4 has not committed any fraud and did not receive any amount from them. He thus prayed to grant bail to the petitioner/A.4
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner/A.4 collected amount from six pilgrims as well as one Koteswara Rao for arranging darshan and providing seshavastram. Investigation is pending and if the bail is granted, the petitioner/A.4 would meddle with the investigation.
5. A perusal of F.I.R and other material shows that the investigation is still pending and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.4. However, considering the fact that the allegations levelled against the petitioner/A.4 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC is amenable to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the concerned Police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar1 during the course of investigation. 1 2014(3) ACR 2670 (SC) 3 Further, the petitioner/A.4 is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency for smooth completion of investigation.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Dt:14.10.2019 Jks 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5837 of 2019 Date:14.10.2019 Jks