Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 394 (AP)

Kanaka Durga v. State of A. P.

2010-05-19

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2010
ORDER Both these Criminal Petitions are filed by the same petitioner - Smt. Kanaka Durga, as such, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Criminal Petition No. 4254 of 2010, under Section 438 Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioner - accused No. 2 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 131 of 2010 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada registered for the offence under Sections 420 IPC and 4 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. 3. Criminal Petition No. 4255 of 2010, under Section 438 Cr.P.C, is filed by the petitioner - accused No. 3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 183 of 2010 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC 4. Heard. 5. The petitioner is one of the Directors of Sai Yuma Chit Funds Company Private Limited and other companies. The petitioners and the other accused did not pay the bid amounts to the subscribers since about 4 months prior to the date of lodging the complaint. They are alleged to have purchased the assets and cheated the subscribers to a tune of Rs. 23,45,53,209/-. In the present case, the victim was cheated to the tune of Rs. 13,44,000/-. 6. The petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature. 7. It is submitted that, in some cases the petitioner has been granted bail. 8. The nature of offence, number of the victims cheated, the amount involved, the possibility of fleeing away from justice, threatening the victims, etc., have to be kept in mind. Several middle class and lower middle class persons have lost their hard earned money. Who knows what happened to their fond hope with regard to the marriages of their daughters and education to their children. Who will hear the cries of those families. Merely because it is said that the petitioner has been suffering from B.P., she cannot be granted anticipatory bail. 9. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the number of victims, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary remedy of anticipatory bail. 10. Hence, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be permitted to renew his application for bail. 10. Hence, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be permitted to renew his application for bail. This order will not come in the way of the petitioner in filing bail application at a later stage.