Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N Nirupa Latha, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 June, 2024
1
APHC010622462023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9597/2023
Between:
N Nirupa Latha, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. -
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
3. JITENDRA KANYALUR The Court made the following ORDER:
1. The petitioners/A. 1, A. 2, and A. 4 to A. 9 have filed the Criminal Petition, as per Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail concernin concerning g Crime No.122 of 2023 registered at the Mudiveedu Police Station in Annamayya District.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioners and others for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 423, 426, 435, 467, 468, 469, 69, 471, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477-A 477 A r/w 34 and 35 of 2 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 424 IPC.
3. The Court has heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioners/accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing 1st Respondent/State. Additionally, Respondents 2 to 6 have been included as party respondents by the order dated 28.12.2023 in I.A. No.1 of 2023.
4. In brief, the Prosecution's case is that the Complainant society, named "Bharath Educational Society" in Madanapalle, is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. R.3 holds the role of Secretary and Correspondent, R.4 acts as Treasurer, while R.5 and R.6 serve as Executive Members of the R.2 Institute. A.1 holds the position of Vice-President, A.3 is among the Executive Members, and it's worth mentioning that the President passed away on 20.08.2019.
(a) Furthermore, it is asserted that following the demise of the President, the accused exhibited increasingly deceptive behaviour in various aspects. Before this, the accused 1 and 2, who were not only members of the executive committee but also spouses, collusively engaged in actions contrary to the interests of the R.2 Institute. They did so by engaging in secretive practices, such as concealing original bills and profit and loss accounts and misappropriating society funds for personal use without being held accountable. Additionally, they failed to provide proper accounts and seized crucial documents collusively with unknown individuals without informing any of the concerned parties. Moreover, the accused fabricated false debts in the name of the R.2 Institute without legitimate reasons, causing severe mental anguish and distress to the respondents/complainants due to their unlawful actions.
(b) It is further stated that on 08.12.2015, the Respondents/ Complainants submitted a representation to the District Registrar, Chittoor, to refrain A.1 and A.2 from involving or considering the accused in any capacity 3 without the knowledge of the complainants, with an apprehension that A.1 and A.2 might alter the executive committee and other members of the R.2 Institute. The accused openly declared their intention to prevent the complainants from accessing the R.2 Institute, which constitutes the subject property of the petition. They also threatened to conceal all documents in undisclosed locations and engage in further malpractices by unlawfully acquiring movable and immovable properties in Madanapalle.
(c) The R.2 institution possesses valuable land measuring Ac.36.00 cents, along with constructions for its educational facilities, high-end computer equipment, competent administrative staff, and a fleet of school buses and other four-wheeler vehicles for operational purposes. Complainants have lodged SROP.No.6 of 2020 against the accused, pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Madanapalle. After filing the SROP, the complainants received a notice from A.1 on 17.02.2020, purportedly for an Extraordinary General Body Meeting scheduled to take place on 08.03.2020 at the premises of the R.2 institute. The Complainants were surprised to find newly alleged members added to the Executive Committee of the R.2 institute, identified as A.3 to A.10, as per the contents of the notice mentioned above.
(d) Despite filing the complaint, the accused persist in their actions involving counterfeit seals, labels, and forged documents, utilizing all available means to wrongfully gain at the expense of causing significant and irreparable loss to the complainants. Based on the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudiveedu Police Station, has registered a case against the accused for the stated offences.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners/accused asserts that the 2 nd Complainant no longer holds the position of Secretary and, therefore, lacks the legal standing to advocate for the society's interests, rendering the complaint non-maintainable. They argue that the issues involve internal disputes among society members, which should be referred to the Registrar of Societies for resolution. Furthermore, they point out that A.3 is deceased as of 4 20.09.2020, highlighting the purported falsity of the complaint and suggesting that the proceedings are initiated solely to harass the accused. They contend that only A.2, the current Secretary of the Society, possesses the authority to take action regarding societal matters.
6. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter, reaffirming the assertions laid out in the complaint. R.2 argues that the Petitioner/A.1 absconded to London over two months ago, specifically in October 2023. Despite this, the Vakalatnama purportedly signed by A.1 for filing the present petition and Crl.P.No.9728/2023 raises questions about its authenticity. R.2 suggest that a thorough investigation into the Vakalats, purportedly signed by A.1, is warranted. Each petitioner is held accountable for any discrepancies related to the signatures allegedly made by A.1 within Indian territory despite her departure to London in October 2023.
7. In response to the counter, the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 have submitted a reply, arguing that the allegations in the complaint pertain to civil matters and do not constitute offences under Section 409 IPC or Section 467 IPC. They contend that the complaint was filed with malicious intent to seek revenge against them. Furthermore, the petitioners assert that they needed to be properly guided by their legal counsel regarding filing Vakalat and cases. They claim that the Vakalat of the first petitioner/A.1 was filed in her individual capacity during the submission of the criminal petition on 11.12.2023. However, they attribute this to an inadvertent mistake and oversight, which occurred hastily due to the apprehension of potential arrest by the police.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners on the ground that investigation is not completed.
9. Both learned counsels reiterated their arguments in alignment with the contentions outlined in the petition and the counter. As a result, there is no need to reiterate the contentions raised by the learned counsel.
510. The power to authorize detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. The attitude of arresting first and then proceeding with the rest is despicable.
11. The law presumes an accused to be innocent until his guilt is proven. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right of liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
12. As per the private complaint, the 1 st complainant society was duly registered with the District Registrar, Chittoor, on 23.06.2008 under the Societies Registration Act, under Certificate of Registration of Society Act (XXI of 1860) 35 of 2001, Society No.318/2008 issued by the District Registrar, Chittoor, under the name and style 'Bharath Educational Society'.
13. The 2nd Complainant is the Secretary and correspondent; the 3rd Complainant is the treasurer; Complainants 4 and 5 are the executive members; A.1 is the vice president; and A.3-B.Sada Siva Reddy is one of the executive members of the 1st Complainant's Society. A.3 died before the filing of the private complaint, but it is not explained why his name is arrayed as accused.
14. The relationship among the Complainants 2 to 5 and A.1 and A.2 is not disputed. A.1 and A.2 are the wife and husband; the complainants 3, 4 and A.2 are the children of the late Ramakrishna Reddy and the late N. Lakshmi Devi. 2nd Complainant is the husband of the 4th Complainant, the 3rd Complainant is the elder sister of the 4th Complainant, and the 5th Complainant is the son of the 3rd Complainant. Lakshmi Devi, i.e., the 1st Complainant's President, died on 20.08.2019.
15. It is alleged against A.1 and A.2, who are spouses, that following the passing of Lakshmi Devi, they have engaged in actions detrimental to the interests of the 1st Complainant Institute. Specifically, they stand accused of fabricating false and misleading documents in the institute's name, resulting in 6 substantial harm. The complainants, along with Lakshmi Devi, lodged a representation with the District Registrar, Chittoor, on 08.12.2015, requesting not to consider the actions of A.1 to A.3 without their knowledge. It is the grievance of the complainants that the accused have openly declared their intention to bar them from accessing the 1 st Complainant institution. The complainants assert that the institution boasts significant assets, including 36 acres of valuable land and ownership of numerous school buses and other vehicles. Furthermore, the institution accommodates over four thousand students across various courses, ranging from kindergarten to degree courses, postgraduate studies, B.Tech, M.Tech, MBA, Polytechnic, B.Ed, and other professional courses. This extensive range of offerings underscores the institution's esteemed reputation within the public and broader society.
16. The complainants initiated S.R.O.P.No.6 of 2020 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, against A.1 and A.2. Upon scrutiny of the allegations in both the S.R.O.P. and the private complaint, it becomes apparent that the latter merely replicates the contents of the former. Precisely, the private complaint mirrors the assertions made in the S.R.O.P. In the private complaint, it is noted that after the filing of the S.R.O.P., the complainants received a notice from A.1 on 17.02.2020, intimating them of a special extraordinary general body meeting scheduled for 08.03.2020 at 10:00 AM at the 1st complainant institution. According to the notice, the present accused, No.3 to 10, were purportedly added without prior permission. The complainants have raised objections in writing regarding adding A.3 to A.10 to the complainants' institution. The complainants assert that A.3 to A.10 are to be considered nominal persons and, therefore, lack the authority to interfere or meddle with the lawful rights of the complainants.
17. As per the complainants' assertion, following the institution of S.R.O.P.No.6 of 2020, they initiated correspondence with the District Registrar, who was stationed in Chittoor then. The documentation about this correspondence has been duly submitted as part of the case record.
718. The complainants also allege that despite the President's passing on 20.08.2019, A.1 and A.2 failed to convene the general and annual body meetings. Furthermore, Petitioner No.1/A.1 departed to London over two months ago, specifically in October 2023, and although absent, A.1 purportedly signed vakalatnamas individually for filing the present criminal petitions (No. 9597 of 2023 and Crl.P.No. 9728 of 2023). Additionally, Petitioner No.2 also travelled to London; the circumstances surrounding the signing of vakalatnamas warrant thorough investigation. In response to the counter affidavit, Petitioner No.2 submitted a reply affidavit asserting that since the complainants had initiated legal proceedings by filing SROP No. 6 of 2020 involving the affairs of the society, they deemed it prudent to obtain the signature of the 1st Petitioner/A.1 on vakalatnamas and other necessary documents before her departure abroad. Accordingly, her signatures were obtained on vakalatnamas and other documents, and she provided two vakalatnamas to the counsel for filing the criminal petitions. The counsel then directed the remaining petitioners to sign the same vakalatnamas to facilitate filing the criminal petitions. They assert their lack of awareness regarding filing vakalatnamas and cases and claim they were inadequately guided by the counsel who filed the criminal petitions.
19. The accusation is that the accused have persistently continued their involvement in the creation of counterfeit seals, labels, and forged documents; by utilizing these fraudulent means, they aim to attain wrongful gains, thereby inflicting severe and irreparable losses upon the innocent complainants.
20. Upon perusing the private complaint, it is evident that specific details regarding the forged documents purportedly used as genuine have not been provided. However, it is important to note that this matter is subject to investigation, where such details are expected to be uncovered and elucidated upon further scrutiny.
21. As evident from the record, the Petitioners are currently managing the society's affairs, while S.R.O.P.No.6 of 2020 remains pending before the II 8 Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. At this stage, this Court is not expected to find whether A.4 to A.10 can be appointed office bearers of the society. Therefore, such appointments must be left to be determined through the appropriate legal proceedings.
22. The learned counsel representing the Petitioners contends that the inclusion of sections 467, 471, 474, and 475 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is solely to circumvent and overcome the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar1; regarding the applicability of section 41A of Cr. P.C., which deals with notice of appearance before a Police officer and which was brought on the Statute book by way of amendment under Cr.P.C., (Amendment) Act No.5 of 2009 with effect on and from 01.11.2010. Furthermore, it is emphasized that in the absence of prima facie material regarding documents purported to be forged, no detention should be authorized.
23. For better appreciation, the provisions which are punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years are reproduced hereunder:
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.--
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over the property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer-chant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 9 property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.-- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
474. Having possession of a document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine.--
Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the descriptions mentioned in section 466 of this Code, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the descriptions mentioned in section 467, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
475. Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents described in section 467 or possessing counterfeit marked material.--
Whoever counterfeits upon, or in the substance of, any material, any device or mark used for the purpose of authenticating any document described in section 467 of this Code, intending that such device or mark shall be used for the purpose of giving the appearance of authenticity to any document then forged or thereafter to be forged on such material, or who, with such intent, has in his possession any material upon or in the substance of which any such device or mark has been counterfeited, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
24. Notably, the complainants have not alleged that their signatures were forged in relation to the administration of the society's affairs. The essence of the Complainants' argument does not revolve around an accusation of the Petitioners forging signatures of the Complainants'. Rather, their primary grievance is the assertion that the Petitioners lack the rightful authority to 10 manage the institution. The determination of whether the Petitioners indeed possess such authority constitutes the subject matter of S.R.O.P.No.6 of 2020. Even if it is assumed that the Petitioners have no authority to engage in such transactions, it would be unjust to categorize the documents as false in light of the settled legal position.
25. Reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. V. State of Bihar 2, wherein it has been stated as follows:
"16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner to execute the deed on the owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his, even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under the first category of "false documents", it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
26. It will also be relevant to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian V. R.Jawaharaj and another 3 . The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery, i.e., making a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first, it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 2 (2009) 8 SCC 547 3 (2018) 3 MLJ (Crl) 39 (SC) LNIND 2018 SC 265 11 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied.
Therefore, unless and until ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied, a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete.
27. Given the prevailing circumstances, there is a legitimate question as to whether the Petitioners can be deemed to have committed the offence of creating a false document under section 464 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). If it is established that the documents executed by the Petitioners are not false, then the essential element of forgery is lacking. Consequently, without establishing the offence of forgery, no charges under sections 467, 471, 474, or 475 of the IPC can be substantiated. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds force in the submission of the Petitioners' counsel that all other offences except section 409 of IPC, are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, hence, Petitioners are entitled the benefit of notice under section 41A of Cr.P.C.
28. It is pertinent to highlight that the complaint has been filed under section 409 of IPC. The complainants allege that A.1 and A.2, managing the Educational society, have committed a criminal breach of trust concerning the property. The contentions raised in the S.R.O.P.No.6 of 2020 and in this crime are almost same; Defacto Complainants may work out their remedies in the civil Court which is the competent forum to decide the rights of the parties. In absence of prima facie material, at this stage, it cannot be said that the Petitioners committed breach of trust in respect of the properties of society. However, this Court views that criminal cases must be conducted by the procedures outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In instances where serious accusations of criminal breach of trust regarding the educational society are made, the ongoing proceedings before the civil Court should not obstruct the investigation officer from carrying out the necessary investigations
29. The learned counsel for the Petitioners argues that the dispute at hand is fundamentally civil, and the criminal complaint filed by the respondent is 12 merely an attempt to harass the Petitioners. The Complainants filed a private complaint in 2022 and initiated S.R.O.P proceedings in 2020. In the S.R.O.P, the Complainants alleged that since August 2019, following the demise of the Bharath Educational Society's President, the respondents had displayed a hostile attitude by causing severe damage and tarnishing the institution's reputation. They alleged mismanagement of funds, failure to render accounts, and other illegal acts contrary to the institution's rules and regulations. The S.R.O.P sought to declare the Petitioners as authenticated members of the institute in accordance with the memorandum of articles of association dated 23.06.2008. Despite initiating S.R.O.P proceedings, the Complainants waited nearly two years before filing the private complaint containing identical accusations.
30. In Babu Venkatesh V. State of Karnataka cited supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court further referred to the observations in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal4, wherein it held that:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable 4 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 13 offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases, that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."
21. We find that in the present case, though civil suits have been filed with regard to the same transactions and though they are contested by Respondent 2 by filing a written statement, he has chosen to file a complaint under Section 156(3)CrPC after a period of one-and-a-half years from the date of filing of a written statement with an ulterior 14 motive of harassing the appellants. We find that the present case fits in the category of No. 7, as mentioned in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426].
31. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel V. State of Gujarat5, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
18. The issue relates to the alleged forgery of four receipts dated 21-8-
2010, 22-8-2010, 26-8-2010 and 28-8-2010 each for a sum of Rs 30,00,000 totalling Rs 1,20,00,000 issued by Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar. For the recovery of the amount of Rs 1,20,00,000, Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai filed Special Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015 in October 2015. After receiving a summons in Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015, Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar entered an appearance and filed an application seeking leave to defend and the said application was allowed on 19-4-2016. On application filed by Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai in Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015, four receipts were sent to forensic science laboratory for obtaining the opinion of handwriting expert. The handwriting expert's report was received in the Court on 15-12-2016 to the effect that all four receipts were not signed by Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar. It was thereafter on the complaint filed by Respondent 2, FIR No. I-194/2016, dated 28-12-2016, was registered against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 IPC.
20. Be that as it may, in Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015, leave to defend was granted to Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar on 19-4-2016. On the application filed by Appellant 3 in the said Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015, four receipts filed in the suit were sent to the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar. It was only thereafter, complaint was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR No. I-194/2016 was registered on 28-12-2016 against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 IPC. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, in Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015, Issue 5 has been framed by the Court "whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts". When the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, in our view, the FIR ought 5 (2020) 3 SCC 794 15 not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit.
32. Though the delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings, as it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, this Court views that the Petitioners make at least a case for the grant of anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.
33. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra 6 , the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down certain factors and parameters that must be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It further held as follows:
113. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Court must carefully examine the entire available record, particularly the allegations directly attributed to the accused, which are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.
34. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing; the justification for exercising it is quite another. Apart from the power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of the commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. (In this regard, a reference can be made to Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar.7)
35. It is not the Prosecution's case that the Petitioners did not cooperate with the investigation. The Petitioners have expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. No previous criminal antecedents are reported against the Petitioner.
36. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court believes that even if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any 6 (2011) 1 SCC 694 7 (2014) 8 SCC 273 16 apprehension for the Prosecution that they will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the Petitioners have a permanent abode. It is also not the Prosecution's requirement that the custody of the Petitioners is required to conduct further investigation. The custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not necessary in the backdrop of allegations made against them. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners would not impede the ongoing investigation.
37. Upon careful review of the available material, as there is no risk of interference with the Petitioners' ongoing investigation, this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to grant anticipatory bail.
38. As a result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 9 subject to their surrender before the Station House Officer, Mudiveedu Police Station, Annamayya District, within two (2) weeks from today. On such surrender, the Petitioners shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. Upon their release, the Petitioners are mandated to adhere to the following conditions:
i. On such release, the Petitioners/Accused are directed to appear before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when their presence is required and ii. The Petitioners/Accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Investigating or Police Officer and shall cooperate with the investigating officer.
39. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is 17 affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 19.06.2024 MS/SAK 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Petition No.9597 of 2023 Date: 19.06.2024 SAK