Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bonnala Srinivas vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 January, 2022
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
:PRESENT: 1 Os THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH *s:x':33 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7382 OF 2021 Between: Bonnala Srinivas, S/o. Adinarayanarao, aged 46 years, R/o.D.No.9-19-14, Makineniveri Street, Yadav Kalyana Mandapam, Kothapeta, Vijayawada Urban, Vijayawada. ...Petitioner/Accused AND . The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the S.H.O/I.O of Vijayawada | Town Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District in Crime No.441 of 2021 dated 17-09-2021 Under Sections 409, 406, 420, 506 of IPC on such terms and conditions as this honourable court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7382 OF 2021 ORDER:-
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/ Accused in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 441 of 2021 of the Vijayawada-I Town Police Station, Krishna District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner who worked as PRO to the Endowments Minister, intentionally cheated the defacto complainant and collected Rs. 30 lakhs in three spells without introducing the original owner and thereby cheated him and basing on the compliant, crime has been registered against the petitioner.
3. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case lodged against the petitioner is motivated, vindictive , capricious, illegal informed and devoid of any reasonable merits. It is submitted that at the instance of the Minister the present case was foisted against the petitioner.
ag
5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that vthe investigation is pending and huge amount of Rs.30,00,00/- was misappropriated by the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for pre arrest bail.
6. The Courts while granting bail has to take into consideration, i, The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
li. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii, § The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly ' comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of Common knowledge and concern;
Vili. | While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The Court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." (Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (AIR 2011 SC 312 = MANU/SC/1021/2010)) '
7. In this case, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken in its face value, the petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- admittedly the investigation is almost completed,, as such, there cannot be any apprehension that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or hamper the. investigation process. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner, however, on certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.441/2021 of the Station House Officer, Vijayawada-| Town Police Station, Krishna District on condition of executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Vijayawada-| Town Police Station, Krishna District. The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Vijayawada -- | Town Police Station, Krishna District, twice in a week i.e., every Thursday and Friday between 10.00 AM and 12.00 PM until further orders. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.TATA ca :
ITRUE COPY/I vey, AR SEC FICER To, _ a ~
1. The VII Additional District Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge:
at Vijayawada.
. The Station House Officer, Viiayawada-| Town Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. One CC to Sri. Jada Sravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT]
5. One spare copy
i) MM Note: Modified the Crime Number as "441 of 2021" in place of "Crime Number 63 of 2021" and "his" in place of "her" in paragraph NO.8 in order dated 27-12-2021 in CRLP No.7382 of 2021 as per Court Order dated 17-1-2022 in IA.No.1 of 2022 in CRLP No.7382 of 2021.
Substitute this order dated 27.12.2021 which was already dispatched on 3.1.2022.
Sd/- K.Tata Rao DEPUTY REGISTRAR HIGH COURT DRJ DATED:27/12/2021 17/01/2022 AMENDED ORDER IA. No.1 of 2022 IN CRLP.No.7382 of 2021 ALLOWED cu foe yan not vf fo % gon ber"
24 jan 2022 ae oe "
A N k ;
Qe a ae im rod te an gee .
ack ae ee ae f "y f,