Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B Chandrakala vs State Of Ap on 9 April, 2020

Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao

Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1702 OF 2020

ORDER:

-

In this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner/A2 seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.45 of 2020 of Srikakulam Rural Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered for the offence under Section 420 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC and investigation is reported pending.

2. The case of the defacto complainant is that he belongs to Chennai and working as Trainer in Centre for Excellence. As a part of his job, when he went to Bankers' Colony in Srikakulam, he got acquaintance with Al, who reported him that he was running Distance Education Centre and requested the complainant to admit students known to him. Believing the representation of Al and petitioner/A2, who is his wife, the complainant got admitted 128 students who are studying M.Sc and 9 students who are studying degree course in the institute of Al and A2. They collected Rs.15,94,500/- in all from those students. Later, the complainant came to know that no admission numbers were issued to students. He suspected the bonafides of accused and on verification, he came to know that the Education Centre run by them was a fake one. Both the accused vacated their house and absconded, Later, the complainant went to Pathapatnam where the petitioner/A2 was working in St.Anns School, There, Al executed a bond in favour of the petitioner agreeing to repay the amount, but he did not pay the amount. After sometime Scanned with CamScanner 4 { they paid Rs.90,000/ to the complainant and jater again they absconded. Still the complamant has to get Rs.12,50,000/ from them.

The whereabouts of the accused are not known. On the report of the complainant, the Police registered FIR and investigation is underway.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Chandrasekhar Uapakurti and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. Severely fulminating the complaint allegations as false, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner/A2 is wife of one Linga Raju of Pathapatnam, who works as Driver in Indian Army at New Delhi and the petitioner/A2 is permanent resident of Rajamahendravaram and she has nothing to do with Al and she never worked with him in the Distance Education Centre and she never promised the complainant to admit the students. She has also not executed any bond agreeing to repay the amount and all the allegations are false to the core. Leamed counsel for petitioner produced the Wedding Card of the petitioner/A2 and Linga Raju, Aadhaar Card of the petitioner/A2 and also the identity Card issued by the Indian Army Department showing the petitioner as the wife of B.L. Raju. He thus, prayed to allow the petition.

§, Learned Additional' Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application stating that if the petitioner/A2 has nothing to do with the Al, there was no need for a stranger to implicate her in case by which he would not get any benefit. He would submit that investigation is still pending and charge sheet is yet to be filed.

Scanned with CamScanner 3

6. On perusal of the record, particularly Aadhaar Card of the petitinoer/A2 and also the Wedding Card of the petitioner, this court finds prima facie force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. However, having regard to the fact that it is a case of cheating for high amount and as the investigation is still in the nascent stage, this Court is of the considered view that this order in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the investigating officer is directed to scrupulously follow the provision under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and also the guidelines issued by Hon'ble apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar' during the course of investigation. The petitioner/A2 in tum is directed to cooperate with the investigation agency for smooth completion of investigation.

7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, in this Noe Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 09.04.2020 MS Scanned with CamScanner