Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thunuguntla Dinesh Kumar vs The State Of Ap on 22 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3804 OF 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C to release the petitioner/accused, in the event of his arrest, in connection with Cr.No.03/RCO CIU ACB/2020 of Anti-Corruption Bureau, CIU, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, who allegedly apprehending his arrest in connection with the above crime for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(C)(D) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(a), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) read with 34 IPC, as he has been falsely implicated.
2. The case of prosecution in nut-shell is that, the Director and certain staff of Insurance Medical Services, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, during the years 2014 and 2019 procured drugs, medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment, laboratory kits, furniture, biometric machines etc., for higher rate than prevailing market rates violating established procedure. In the process, the norms fixed by the Government to maintain financial discipline were flouted without following due procedure in order to save the Government exchequer from any loss. The instance specifically stated against the petitioner is that he, as Director of M/s Prodigy Computers and Laptops Private Limited supplied quotations for installation of biometric devices at the establishments under the control of IMS in the state of Andhra Pradesh by furnishing false quotations in the name of different propriety concerns or firms fabricating them to avoid competitive bidding. Further allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner paid a bribe of Rs.5,00,000/- to 2 A.2 apart from supplying two tabs, two computers and two printers as an illegal gratification. Thus, the role of the petitioner, according to the prosecution, is that he joined in criminal conspiracy with other accused, fraudulently to cause wrongful loss to the Government exchequer. On the complaint presented by then FAC Director, IMS, A.P., Vijayawada on 10.06.2020, a case was registered against the accused including the petitioner for the offences stated above by ACB (CIU), A.P., Vijayawada. The matter is stated to be under investigation.
3. The main contention of this petitioner is that there are changed circumstances after dismissal of the earlier petition, major part of investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed against the one of the accused. Therefore, the question of interference with further investigation, in the event of enlarging the petitioner/accused on bail, does not arise.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused during the course of arguments, while reiterating the contentions, drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in AP/10/Cr.M.P.No.50619/10.08.2020 in Cr.No.3/RCO-CIU- ACB/2020, wherein the learned Special Judge made certain observations about completion of major part of investigation in paras 19 and 21 as follows:-
Para 19) This Court observed that the petitioner/A.O.2 is in judicial remand since 13.06.2020, the statement of the petitioner was already recorded by the investigating officer during police custody. Further that the entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence and it appears that all the material documents have been seized and they are in the custody of prosecution and further all the material witnesses have been examined.3
Para 20) The learned counsel further submitted that the situation at jails is very bad due to spreading of Navel Corona Virus in the jail premises and several prisoners have affected with that there is every chance of the petitioner aged above 60 years may also affect with Covid-19.
5. Taking advantage of the observations made by the learned Special Judge in the said Order, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao would contend that major part of investigation is completed and even if charge sheet is filed against one of the accused in the changed circumstances, which would enable the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and requested to issue a direction to the Station House Officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau, CIU, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada to release the petitioner/accused in the event of his arrest in connection with the above crime.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Anti-Corruption Bureau would contend that it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused in the said crime, as there are no changed circumstances, at this stage.
7. Undoubtedly, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(C)(D) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(a), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) read with 34 IPC in connection with Cr.No.03/RCO CIU ACB/2020 of Anti-Corruption Bureau, CIU, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. The petitioner is aged about 60 years, being senior citizen, he is apprehending his arrest in connection with the above crime. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Anti-
Corruption Bureau would contend that there are no changed 4 circumstances after dismissal of the earlier petition by this Court in Crl.P.No.2453 of 2020, dated 30.07.2020, thereby the question of enlarging the petitioner/accused on bail does not arise.
8. Undoubtedly, earlier bail petition filed by this petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the investigation in this case is not yet completed, but at the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, while drawing the attention of this Court to paras 19 and 20 of the Order passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in AP/10/Cr.M.P.No.50619/10.08.2020 in Cr.No.3/RCO-CIU- ACB/2020, dated 28.08.2020 contended that major part of investigation is completed. As per the material available on record the petitioner/accused was absconding and he is not cooperating with the investigating agency and the charge sheet is filed only against the other accused who were already released by the learned Special Judge and not against the petitioner/accused. As the investigation is not yet completed and in the event of enlarging the petitioner on bail, there is every possibility of interfering with further investigation.
9. When the petitioner/accused filed a petition for grant of pre- arrest bail, unless there are changed circumstances after dismissal of the earlier petition, this Court normally cannot grant pre-arrest bail on the basis of similar stage of investigation.
10. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs., Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav1 laid down the same principle held as follows:-
1
AIR 2005 SC 921 5 "Renewing request for the same relief without any changed substantial circumstances in investigation and/or without producing additional material before this Court, this Court cannot grant bail to this petitioner."
11. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgment referred above, it is difficult to this Court to exercise the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C to grant pre-arrest bail, as I find no substantial changed circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail petition by this Court in and no substantial material is produced before this Court, except the order copy in Crl.P.No.2453 of 2020, dated 30.07.2020 passed by this Court and the order copy in AP/10/Cr.M.P.No.50619/10.08.2020 in Cr.No.3/RCO-CIU- ACB/2020, dated 28.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, and that the accusations made in the above order are only limited to the petitioner therein and they are not helpful to the petitioner/accused in this case to gain benefit of that order regarding changed circumstances. Hence, I find no ground to direct the Station House Officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau, CIU, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences alleged in the above crime. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 21.09.2020 IS 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3804 OF 2020 Date: 22.09.2020 IS