Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nagamunthala Subramanyam ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 July, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4245 of 2022
ORDER:
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.66 of 2022 of Sullurpet Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, filed the above criminal petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner No.2 herein is running a chit business unauthorizedly for the last fifteen years. The complainant, who has acquaintance with the petitioners subscribed in a chit worth of Rs.5,00,000/-. She paid the said amount, and the chit period was completed by 06.05.2022. When the complainant visited the house of the petitioners to collect the amount, it was locked and on enquiry, it came to light that petitioners left house four days back and hence, report was lodged before the Police. Basing on the said report, Police registered crime No.66 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 56(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Act, 1971 and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors Financial Establishment Act, 1999.
3. Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for petitioners and the Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public 2 Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as „Public Prosecutor‟) for the respondent-state.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant is not subscriber of the chit being conducted by petitioner No.2. He submits that petitioner No.1 is nothing to do with conducting of chit business by petitioner No.2. Learned counsel further submits that successful bidders having received the chit amounts failed to pay the remaining installments due to which petitioners obtained loans for continuing the chit business. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.2 having suffered loss in the chit business, filed insolvency petition vide I.P.No.22 of 2022 under Section 10 of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 read with Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Provincial Insolvency Rules on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur and subscribers of chits were shown as respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner No.1 also filed insolvency petition before learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur and the same is pending scrutiny. He submits that petitioners are innocent, and they have been falsely implicated due to pendency of the IP proceedings before learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, and to force the petitioners to pay the amounts. Hence, he prays to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that petitioners cheated the subscribers and the amount involved in this crime is Rs.91,50,000/- and Rs.67,53,000/- which comes to a total 3 of Rs.1,59,03,000/-. He submits that mere filing of insolvency petitions would not absolve the petitioners from their criminal liability. He further submits that investigation is still pending and hence, petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.
6. A perusal of the complaint indicates that complainant is one of the subscribers of chit of Rs.5,00,000/- and she paid the chit amount, and the chit period was completed by 06.05.2022. Admittedly, petitioners are running chit business without having valid license. The question whether complainant is one of the subscribers or not will be decided by the Police during investigation. Petitioners must prove their innocence during course of trial.
7. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 has laid down the following guidelines for considering anticipatory bail applications:
i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
ii. 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.1
AIR 2011 SC 312 = MANU/SC/1021/2010 4 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;
viii. 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."
8. In the instant case, going by the record, petitioners have conducted chit business without obtaining license from the concerned authorities. Prima facie admission of the petitioners regarding their conducting chit business and their failure to repay the chit amount has been made out from the complaint and insolvency petitions filed before the concerned Court. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 filed insolvency petition for Rs.67,53,000/- and petitioner No.2 filed insolvency petition for 5 Rs.91,50,000/-. Thus, the total amount involved in the crime is approximately Rs.1,59,03,000/-.
9. Therefore, in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors and serious allegation of complainant about the petitioners conducting illegal chit business; defrauding subscribers; huge amount involved in this crime and since investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
10. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the pre-arrest bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 19.07.2022 ikn 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4245 of 2022 Date :19.07.2022 ikn