Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.N. Siva Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 March, 2023
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Criminal Petition No.1670 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner/A2 (K.N.Siva Kumari) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.28 of 2022 of CCS Tirupathi Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered on 21.06.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 464, 467, 471 r/w 34 IPC.
2. Heard Sri. G. Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 and Sri. P.M. Mithileswara Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that 9 accused (A1 to A9) cheated Bank of India, Tirupathi Branch at KT Road to a tune of Rs.3,93,86,226/- by promising them to establish different manufacturing units under the scheme of CGTMSE (Credit Guarantee Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises) at Tirupathi and certain places with an intention of criminal breach of trust and produced false and fabricated documents, forged valuable security and used forged 2 BSB, J Crl.P.No.1670 of 2023 documents as genuine. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that the loan sanctioned to the petitioner was Rs.55,00,000/- (cash loan of Rs.40,00,000/- and credit loan of Rs.15,00,000/-). Out of the same, the petitioner repaid a loan amount of Rs.26,07,249/- and credit loan of Rs.11,65,757/- as on the date of filing of this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accusation against the petition is false and that she has been regularly repaying the loan amount. He further submitted that another accused in this case i.e., A9 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide Crl.P.No.553 of 2023 on 07.02.2023.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition submitting that the accusation against the petitioner and other accused is well founded and when once it is established that the offence was committed, further repayment of amount would not absolve them of the guilt of the offence. He further submitted that the case of A9 is different from that case of the petitioner, since A9 repaid the entire loan amount before the complaint was given, whereas, in the present case, there is still due towards both types of loans.
6. Perused the record.
3
BSB, J Crl.P.No.1670 of 2023
7. Though the principles for granting regular or anticipatory bail are common to a large extent, while dealing with petition seeking anticipatory bail, the nature of the evidence and the gravity of the crime should also be taken into account. As rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the case of A9 is not equated to other accused in this case, in so far as granting of anticipatory bail is concerned. In view of large scale financial illegality is made out, it is not a case fit to grant anticipatory bail.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date:20-03-2023 GSP 4 BSB, J Crl.P.No.1670 of 2023 35 THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CRL. P.No. 1670 of 2023 20.03.2023 GSP