Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N.Dharma Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY . - PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3027 of 2020 Between: N.Dharma Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy (A1) Petitioner , AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. through Public Prosecutor at High Court, Amaravathi. Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in pleased to order to enlarge the the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be th Crime No. 124/2020 on the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection wi file of P.S. Chapadu (Kadapa District), in the interests of justice. upon perusing the petition and the grounds The Petition coming on for hearing, eddy, Advocate for the n and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Ranga R filed herei t, the Court made the following Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the Responden ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3027 of 2020 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner / A-1 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.124 of 2020 on the file of Chapadu Police Station, Kadapa District, wherein he is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2020 and 16.06.2020, the Vigilance & Enforcement Officials, Kadapa inspected the premises of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Green Crops Power Projects Private Limited and on such inspection, they noticed some suspicious and unauthorized fertilizers found in the premises of company besides some variations in stocks. They have drawn samples of fertilizers under the cover of two panchanams and after conducting analysis, 5 service samples were declared as "not according to the specifications". Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner.
3. Heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire company along with immovable properties was leased out in favour of M/s Hycons Bioenergy Private Limited by way of a lease deed dated 30.11.2019. In fact, inthe statement given by the person who was working as Manager with the petitioner company to the police on 16.06.2020, he stated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the activities that are taking place in the premises because they have lease out the same in favour of the company.
a
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that only part of the land is leased out to the company and the remaining land is in possession of the petitioner, which was denied by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the lease deed, wherein in the Schedule it is mentioned that --
"All that piece and parcel of immovable industrial shed comprising 4 acres at S.No.43 at Pichipadu village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR District, Andhra Pradesh and of the total leased premises, lessee can use Ac.2.50 cents out of 4 acres, western part of overall property along with road approach from National Highway excluding ground floor of office building and laboratory shed situated on north-west corner of the total premises and zinc fertilizer production unit present on south east corner."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged 62 years and he has nothing to do with any of the allegations in the complaint and he sought for granting bail.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and taking into consideration of the lease deed and statement of the employee of the company, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has leased out the company and prima facie he has nothing to do with any of the allegations in the complaint. In that view of the matter, it is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner / A-1 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.124 of 2020 on the file of Chapadu Police Station, Kadapa District, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the Satisfaction of Station House Officer, Chapadu Police Station, Kadapa District Giddaluru Police Station, Prakasam District.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
.
. 0 lk SD/- V. SAVITHRAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR E COPY // Lor WIRY for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To a i i District
1. The SHO, Chapadu Police Station, Kadapa
2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court, A.P.(OUT)
3. One CC to Sri N.Ranga Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)
4. One spare copy.
SAH HIGH COURT LKJ DATED: 20-08-2020 ORDER CRL.P.NO. 3027 OF 2020 DIRECTION oAN DSH