Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Paruchuri Balaji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
> PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D, RAMESH
CRL.P.No. 5971 of 2021
Between:-
1.Paruchuri Balaji, S/o. Bhaskara Rao
2.Ariga Venkata Prathap © Arigi Prathap
3.K. Mallikarjuna, $/o. Malakondaiah.
weeee Petitioners/Accused Nos.1-3
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Ongole | Town Police Station,
Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati.
2.Makke Raja, S/o. Brahmaiah, Occ : Business, R/o. Gopal Nagar,
1* Lane, Ongole, Prakasam District.
Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on
Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 420 of 2021 on the file of Qngole | Town Police
Station, in the event of his arrest.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of
grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of
Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Asst. Public
Prosecutor on behalf of respondent/State, the Court made the following
ORDER :-
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.5971 of 2021 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"} seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/A1 to A3 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.420/2021 of | Town Police Station, Ongole, wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). |
2. F.LR. was registered basing on the complaint of one M.Raja who stated that on believing the accused, he gave Rs.9,00,000/- ie. Rs.5,50,000/- by google pay, Rs.1,20,000/- through account and Rs.2,00,000 /- through cheque and Rs.30,000/- cash for development of their quarry business and the same was reduced into writing. After that he utilized Rs.2,29,475/- for running the factory. After that he came to know that the accused made some others also as partners for running the quarry. When he asked the accused about the same, accused stated to come on 18.9.2021 at 11.30am to Sri Kanya Lodge, Nellore Bus Stand. When he entered the lodge room the accused forcibly took the original papers which were available with him and ran away. Basing on which he gave report to police.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners. submit that the 1s petitioner is having license for doing mining business and in the year 2020, the complainant approached 1** petitioner and asked to include him in quarry business. They both entered into an MOU on 26.7.2020 with some conditions. The complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and the petitioner also accepted to give 10% profit share to the complainant. Then the complainant has paid Rs.4,00,000/- on the same day and he agreed to pay the remaining Rs.6,00,000/~ on or before 10% July, 2020. But suppressing all these facts, the present criminal case is filed. Now the complainant only to harass the petitioners and to extract more money from the petitioners, lodged the present FIR and prays to consider the case for grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners/Al1 to A3 forcibly took away the original documents from the complainant in the lodge room and thereby the petitioners are liable for punishment under section 420, 384 IPC, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail at this stage.
6. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused forcibly took the original documents from the complainant in the lodge room to which place the complainant was requested to come by the accused. To prove the same, the prosecution has not examined any witnesses i.e. the persons present in the lodge or nearby the lodge who sill state about the commission of the offence by the accused. Considering the same, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioners/A1 ta A3 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.420/2021 of 1 Town Police Station, Ongole, on their executing self bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a ike sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Ongole.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
"gp. SHAIK MOHD. RAFT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// , , Y ¢, SECTION OFFICER .
To , i istrict.
1. The Station House Officer, | Town Police Station, Ongole, Pravesam Dis I Mukke Raja, §/0. Brahmaiah, Occ : Business, R/o. Gopal Nagel, st Ongole, Prakasam District. "out 3 Two tes to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati( ) 4,One CC to Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate(OPUC)
5.One spare copy. / HIGH COURT DR.J DT.02-11-2021.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRL.P.No. 5971 of 2021 ALLOWED =