Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Namarla Satyanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7787 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (New Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.RC0362024A0025 of 2024 of CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam Branch, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Heard arguments of Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I.
3. Prosecution case can best be appreciated through the written information of the de facto complainant/Principal Commissioner, Customs and the same reads as below: 2
"To The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Door No.: 1-83-21/4, MVP Double Road, Sector-8, MPV Colony, Visakhapatnam-530017. Sir, Sub.: Criminal misconduct involving dual identity, having two 10 class certificates, etc by Shri Namarla Satyanarayana, Superintendent (P). Customs, Visakhapatnam (presently Assistant Commissioner, CC (AR), CESTAT, Chennai request investigation of the case Regarding.
Please refer this office letter of even number dated 02.06.2022 (copy enclosed) on the above subject and your office letter number DPVIS2023/CS-1/CO19/22/CBI/VSP/79, dated 16.02.2023 (copy enclosed) advising to lodge two separate complaints i.e., (i) one complaint for allegations of criminal misconduct in maintaining dual identity and obtaining two 10th class certificates and (ii) another complaint for possession of disproportionate assets.
2. In this connection, it is to inform that Pr. DG, Directorate General of Vigilance, CBIC, New Delhi has accorded approval for filing two separate complaints against the subject officer to the jurisdictional CBI, Visakhapatnam by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam as communicated vide letter No.: DGOV/ Vig/COM/OTH/69/2022-Gr B-O/ ADG- DGOV-ZU-HYD, dated 29.11.2023 (copy enclosed). Accordingly, the following complaint regarding maintaining dual 3 identity, two 10 class certificates and fake / false caste certificate by Shri Namarla Satyanarayana, Superintendent (P), Customs, Visakhapatnam (presently Assistant Commissioner, O/o Chief Commissioner (AR), CESTAT, Chennai) is filed for further investigation by CBI.
3. In this connection, it is to inform that various complaints, inter alia, maintaining dual identity by obtaining two 10th class certificates, fake ST caste certificate for obtaining government job, forgery, falsification of records, etc were received against Shri Namarla Satyanarayana, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) Visakhapatnam.
4. Regarding the issue of fake caste certificate, the Collector & District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam has earlier cancelled ST certificate of Shri Namata Satyanarayana vide order (M)R.DIS.No.2351/2015/C5, dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure-A).
However, the order dated 25.06.2018 of the Collector & District Magistrate cancelling ST certificate was stayed by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department (TW.CV.2), Govt. of AP vide Memo No.: 11021/51/CV2/2018, dated 12.07.2018 on appeal filed by Shri Namarla Satyanarayana (Annexure-B) The appeal is still pending decision before the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department (TW.CV.2), Govt. of AP since July' 2018 onwards.
5. District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam vide letter Rc. No.: 6567/03/ 2019.DEO.VSP, dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure-C), forwarded the enquiry report of Deputy Education Officer (RC No.: 90/DyEOVSP/2019, dated 15.05.2019). Relevant extract of the Deputy Education Report is as under:
4
1. St Peters Aided High School, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam:
As per the report submitted by the Headmaster, St Peter Aided High School. Gnanapuram and as per the available records Sri Namala Satyanarayana Si Venkata Rao has studied in St Peters Aided High School, Gnanapuram from 1975 to 1980 and detailed report as follows:
a. Admission No & Date of Joining : 2755/dt. 12.06.1975 b. SNo & Year : S.No: Nil/12.06.1975 c. Name of the pupil : Namala Satyanarayana d. Name of the School studied : St Peter Aided High School e. Fathers Name : Namala Venkata Rao f. Date of Birth : 03.05.1965 g. Religion and Caste : HINDU & DASARI h. Date of Admission : 12.06.1975 i. Class of Admission : VI "B"
j. Record Sheet No & Date : 5824 Dt 16.06.1970 k. Date of leaving class & year : 11.04.1980-Xclass completed l. Transfer Certificate No & Date : 287/Dt 30.06.1980
2. St. Ann's Aided High School Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam:5
As per the report submitted by the Headmistress, St ANNS Aided High School, Bheemunipatnam they have not found any record except a note of 1982 October Nominal roll and the details are as follows:
a Roll No : 53500 b. Name of the student : Namarla Satyanarayana c. Date of Birth : 03.09.1966 d. Community Code : ST e. Month/Year : Oct-1982
From the above, it appears there exist two 10th Class Certificates i.e., one in the name of Namala Satyanarayana and the other in the name of Namarla Satyanarayana.
6. Shri Namarla Satyanarayana in the name of Namala Satyanarayana (after executing rectification deed vide Document No.: 1221/1996 (Annexure-D) for changing his surmame from Namarla to Namala) executed Gift Settlement Deed for Rs.5,48,000/- with Document No.: 2446 of 2007, dated 21.08.2007 (Annexure-E) in favour of his son Namala Venkata Rao for gifting 75 square yards of land at Bhavani Gardens, Kapparada village within GVMC limits. In the said registered document, it is mentioned that Shri Namarla Venkat Rao being minor is represented by his mother Smt. Namala Nookaratnam w/o Satyanarayana residing at Door No.: 34-14- 37, Manual Street, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam-530004. Shri Namarla Satyanarayana has never informed the department about changing his surname.
6
7. This office also approached Hon'ble Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam before which cases involving Shri Namarla Satyanarayana are pending, by filing Miscellaneous Applications and obtained the following documents (Annexure- H) pertaining to the officer:
a. copy of Charge Sheet in (Calendar case) CC No. 196/2017; b. copy of Case Diary: in (Calendar case) CC No. 196/2017; and c. copy of written statement of Shri Namala Satyanarayana in (original suit) OS No.: 976/2017.
In the above Court documents, name of the officer is mentioned as Namala Satyanarayana whereas in the records of the Customs Department his name is mentioned as Namaria Satyanarayana. From these documentary evidences, prima facie, it appears that Shri Namarla Satyanarayana is maintaining dual identity. Further the issue of obtaining two SSC (i.e., 10th class) certificates by misrepresentation and forgery also needs to be investigated, which is mentioned in the preceding paras.
8. In this regard, relevant extracts of CVC's Vigilance manual 2021 are given below:
Para 5.1.1: "...As a general rule, investigation into allegations of the types given below should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to the Anti- Corruption Branch in the Union Territories: (a) Allegations involving offences punishable under law which the Delhi Special Police Establishment are authorised to investigate; 7 such as offences involving bribery, corruption, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, falsification of records, etc.; (b) Possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, (c) Cases in which the allegations are such that their truth cannot be ascertained without making inquiries from non-official persons, or those involving examination of non-Government records, books of accounts, etc.; (d) Other cases of a complicated nature requiring expert police investigation..." From the above, it may be seen that the cases involving criminal misconducts need to be probed by expert investigation agency.
9. From the above detailed documentary evidences, prima facie, it appears that Shri Namaria Satyanarayana maintains dual identity. Further, issue of obtaining two 10th class certificates by misrepresentation and forgery needs to be investigated. The truth in the above allegations involving maintaining dual identity, forgery, falsification of records, etc against Shri Namarla Satyanarayana, Superintendent (Preventive). Customs, Visakhapatnam cannot be ascertained by this Department as they are of complicated nature requiring expert police investigation and as such needs to be Investigated by CBI in terms of para 5.1.1 of Chapter 5 of CVC's Vigilance Manual.
8
10. In view of the above, it is requested to investigate the subject issue of criminal misconduct involving dual identity, two 10th class certificates, etc by Shri Namarla Satyanarayana.
11. Further, it is to intimate that the non-criminal aspects of the subject issue i.e.. (i) Un-authorized absence; (ii) Mis- declaration of the family particulars and IPRs at the time of joining the department; and (iii) Non-filing of Immovable Property Returns (IPRs) is being investigated by the department. This matter is brought to the notice of the CBI so as to avoid parallel investigation covering these three issues in terms of Para 5.4 of the Handbook of Vigilance Administration, 2022.
Yours faithfully
Encl.: As above. Signed by
Neelam Sridhar
Principal Commissioner
Copy submitted to:
The ADG, DGoV, Customs & Central Tax, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, H. No.: 1-11- 251/10, SV Trinabh Heights, Begumpet. Hyderabad-500016: for information with reference to the letter dated 29.11.2023."
4. As against that, the grounds urged in the bail petition are as under:
9
The petitioner herein is a law-abiding citizen and all the allegations made against the petitioner are false and baseless. The petitioner herein has been working in the customs department for the past 37 years and has made his way to the present post through sheer hard work and efforts.
The allegations in the complaint are baseless and lack any evidence to support them. The petitioner was implicated in this case without any grounds or justification. The present complaint is lodged solely to harass the petitioner as a part of seeking personal vendetta.
The petitioner herein is being falsely implicated and furthermore, none of the allegations in the complaint disclose as to why the jurisdiction of the respondent police is invoked and the same is merely with an oblique motive. The petitioner herein had never done act which is in contravention of the law and none of the allegations satisfy the ingredients necessary to register the instant complaint and to further invoke the Provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.10
A bare reading of the complaint suggests that ingredients of Section 420 of I.P.C. are not satisfied. Section 420 of I.P.C. deals with cheating. The Section is extracted hereunder:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
That the primary ingredient of cheating is to dishonestly induce the person to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed. The petitioner herein never induced the de facto complainant to deliver any property related to him nor anybody to deliver any property. Therefore, Section 420 of IPC cannot be attracted to the present case.
The respondent herein has included all the possible sections related to forgery in the FIR lodged against the petitioner herein. However, the ingredients of Sections 468 and 471 of 11 I.P.C. are not satisfied in the present case. The Sections are extracted hereunder:
"Section 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating:-
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"Section 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."
The petitioner herein had never forged any document, much less use the same for the purpose of cheating and further, the complaint fails to disclose how any forgery was committed by the petitioner herein.
The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, it is to be noticed that Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act deals with a charge that can be used to prosecute public servants who commit criminal 12 misconduct and alleging that the accused had misused his official position to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or others. The Sections are extracted below:
"Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or,
(d) if he, (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing 13 or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant Pursuant to the Amendment Act of 2018, the Section is no longer existent in the said Act. That the essential ingredients of the above sections are that the accused had misused his official position to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or others and the same is not satisfied in the instant case. There is not one single allegation that the petitioner herein had misused the office he is holding to gain pecuniary advantage and therefore the said Section could not be invoked in the instant case.
14
That there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The allegations in the complaint are said to have been committed 37 years back whereas the complaint is filed on 05.01.2024. There is a delay of more than 36 years in filing the complaint and for which no proper explanation was provided. That though delay in filing a complaint in itself may not be a ground for quashing FIR, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu1 quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground of delay by specifically observing that:
"24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint."
In the present case, filing of complaint after long lapse of time clearly indicates that the criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner. The same is not tenable.
It is not the case of the complainant that the knowledge of the alleged offences had come to their attention recently as there 1 (2022) 15 SCC 164 15 are various proceedings initiated regarding the caste certificate against the petitioner herein. Previously the District Collector vide Proceedings bearing (M) R.Dis.No.2351/2015/C5, Dt.25.06.2018 had cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner herein and thereafter, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal against the said order and the order of the District Collector was stayed vide Memo No.11021/51/CV.2/2018, Dt.12.07.2018 and the same is pending adjudication.
The petitioner herein was placed under suspension vide Proceedings bearing F.No.S20/15/2020-CIU, Dt.04.05.2020 pertaining to the same issue that the petitioner herein had submitted a fake Caste Certificate. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said suspension order, the petitioner herein had approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal vide OA/20/506/2020 along with MA/20/409/2020 and the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order Dt.10.11.2020 was pleased to set aside the suspension order and reinstated the petitioner herein.
The petitioner herein was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vide Office Order No.156/2020, Dt.24.12.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner herein 16 was served with F.No.520/15/2020-CIU-(Vol0-II), Dt.04.02.2021 containing the Articles of Charge and thereafter, the Department vide Order bearing F.No.S20/15/2020-CIU, Dt.11.03.2021 had revoked the suspension order of the petitioner.
The petitioner herein aggrieved by the charge memo and the failure of the Department in placing the petitioner herein in his promoted post was constrained to approach the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.162/2021 and O.A No.174/2021 and both were disposed vide common order Dt.07.04.2021, setting aside the charge memo and directing the Department to permit the petitioner herein to join the Post of Assistant Commissioner. It is further submitted that, aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA/20/506/2020 vide Order Dt.10.11.2020, the Department had preferred a Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court vide Order Dt.05.03.2021 was pleased to uphold the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is submitted that, thereafter, the Department aggrieved by the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in upholding the order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal preferred a review against the 17 said order and this Court vide order Dt.22.10.2021 was pleased to dismiss the same.
The Department further aggrieved by the common order Dt.07.04.2021 in O.A No.162/2021 and O.A No.174/2021 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, preferred two writ petitions vide W.P No.16194 of 2021 and W.P No.10277 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Court vide Order Dt. 19.04.2022 was pleased to dismiss both the writ petitions on the ground of maintainability.
Thereafter, the petitioner herein had joined service and certificate of Joining was issued to the petitioner herein vide F.No.59/02/2018- Estt.(Pt-III), Dt. 10.10.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner herein was transferred to the CC(AR) CESTAT, Chennai vide Office Order No.129/2022, Dt.30.11.2022.
Thereafter fresh charge memo was served on the petitioner herein vide Memorandum No.08/2024, Dt.29.05.2024, along with the Memorandum of Charges. Aggrieved by the said Memorandum, the petitioner herein was constrained to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai vide O.A.No.310/689/2024 and the Tribunal vide Order Dt. 13.06.2024 18 was pleased to stay all further proceedings on the memo for limited period while disposing the same.
The department having failed against the petitioner herein before various Fora decided to unleash the wrath of the Criminal Procedure against the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein has been fighting tooth and nail against the Department herein against the false allegations levelled by vested interests.
The respondent authorities had also conducted raids at the residence of the petitioner herein on 25.10.2024 and processed an Inventory Memo.
In the present case, the petitioner herein had never done any such act, attracting the ingredients of the said sections. Therefore, no mens rea can be attributed to the petitioner to commit the alleged offences. It is relevant to submit that the present crime registered is an abuse of process of law.
The veracity of the allegations made in the complaint is in serious question in view of the above-mentioned circumstances. The allegations have been made only to foist false case against the petitioner herein and hence cannot be sustained in law. It is 19 submitted that there exists an imminent threat of arrest to the petitioner in view of the raids that were conducted. Until and unless this Court grants anticipatory bail, the petitioner herein would be put to irreparable injury and loss and grave injustice and detrimental to the life and liberty of the petitioner would be caused.
5. For respondent, counter is filed wherein there is detailed rebuttal to the grounds urged in the petition are detailed. Gist of it can be stated as mentioned below:
The FIR drawn in the Case No.RC 25(A)/2024- Visakhapatnam is both maintainable under law and on facts. There is prima facie evidence to establish that the petitioner is maintaining dual identity by obtaining two 10th class certificates i.e., one in the name of Namala Satyanarayana, said to be obtained from St. Peters High School Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam and the other in the name of Namarla Satyanarayana, said to be obtained from St. Ann's School, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam. Further, he belongs to BC-A (Dasari) Community but he fraudulently obtained false Schedule Tribe (ST) certificate in the name of Namarla Satyanarayana, and 20 got Government job in Customs Department, thereby attracting the ingredients of Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption, 1988. The petitioner served his job in customs department by submitting false information and false documents and by illegal means he thereby gained wrongfully as he got promoted to various ranks in the Customs Department, under the reserved ST Category and received salary and other allowances, which resulted in wrongful loss to the Government of India. As such, there was no mala fide intention on the part of the Customs Department to falsely implicate the petitioner. The petitioner secured his posting by illegal means and continued in the department and obtained primary advantage for himself.
There is no inordinate delay in the filing of the complaint. The Principal Commissioner, Customs gave the complaint on 05.01.2024 after obtaining due approval from the Principal Director General of Vigilance, CBIC, New Delhi. After due verification of the content of said complaint, the instant case was registered by CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam under the appropriate sections of the law.
21
As per procedure after registration of FIR, searches are conducted at the residence of the accused on 25.10.2024 for recovery of incriminating documents and Inventory Memo was prepared as per Standard Operating Procedure and no mala fide intention on the part of the investigating agency could be leveled for the same.
In CBI v. Santosh Karmani (17/04/2023), the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed while dealing the parameters to be taken into consideration with anticipation bail. Some of them are that 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, immolation and unjustified detention of accused, the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; the court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complaint.
Prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner and investigation is in progress. At this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has no involvement in the entire episode and as such 22 the anticipatory bail petition of the accused petitioner may be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following precedent:
1. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein their Lordships held that 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. Court shall see about the possibility of the accused to flee from justice. Court should consider reasonable apprehensions about tampering of evidence.
2. Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh3, wherein their Lordships held that when prosecution seeks custodial interrogation it shall show more than prima facie case as to why the custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of investigation.
2
(2011) 1 SCC 694 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 274 23
3. C.Surendranath v. State of Kerala4, wherein their Lordships held that in prosecutions for the offences under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act there shall be material to show that the accused obtained pecuniary advantage or caused pecuniary loss to the Government.
7. This Court on considering the above detailed submissions and the principles of law governing matters of the present nature records the following aspects:
Written information is dated 02.01.2024 and the informant signed it on 05.01.2024 and upon which F.I.R. was registered on 24.10.2024. Thus, it took more than 10 months just to register F.I.R.
Dual identity of the accused is not a new discovery. On 04.02.2021 the department served charge memorandum and articles of charges were served on the accused wherein this dual identity was referred in detail. In that view of the matter, one could say more than three years delay in moving the criminal machinery.
4
2024 SCC OnLine Ker 210 24 Accused/petitioner has been in service and stated to be aged about 57 years. It has never been the apprehension of respondent that he would make himself unavailable for investigation and would abscond. It is a matter of record that concerning his caste identity he has been fighting the litigation for several years. In such circumstances, it is clear that it is not a case of flight risk.
The allegations are about creation of false caste identity and false 10th class certificates. What he had allegedly created are already available. Therefore, there is nothing for him now to tamper with. According to prosecution, measures were initiated to secure the relevant information and documents from appropriate authorities to sustain the prosecution case. All those authorities are Government Officers and the arrest or no arrest of this accused has no bearing on those Government Officers. Therefore, tampering with witnesses cannot be the cause of concern. At this stage it is difficult to think that procuring employment by using alleged false identity certificates amounted to criminal misconduct. One who by illegal means may have 25 obtained public employment. That act may be an offence. However, after becoming public servant it cannot be said that as a public servant there is criminal misconduct on his part for having procured employment on alleged false certificates.
The nature of the offence and all the other facts mentioned in the petition and in the counter make it clear that this is not a case where investigation agency could feel crippled for not arresting the accused. The availability of petitioner for investigation at all times is borne out by the record.
8. In the light of the above circumstances, this Court accedes to the prayer made in the petition.
9. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed in the following terms:
1. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation.
2. In the event of arrest of the petitioner herein/accused, he shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned investigating officer.26
3. The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the CBI, (ACB), Visakhapatnam once in a month i.e., on 10th between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.
4. The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation by a police officer as and when required.
5. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
6. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar acts of crime.
7. The petitioner must regularly participate in the pre-trial and trial process without fail before the competent court.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 06.12.2024 Ivd 27 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7787 of 2024 Date: 06.12.2024 Ivd