Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 391 (AP)

Aveena Gudipati v. Vangapandu Srikanth

2011-04-29

G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

body2011
Judgment :- This petition is filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to cancel bail granted by this Court in Crl.P.No.2192 of 2011 dated 16.3.2011 concerned with Cr.No.1318 of 2010 of S.R. Nagar Police Station. The petitioner is the defacto-complainant and the respondents 1 and 2 are A1 and A2 in the Cr.No.1318 of 2010 of S.R. Nagar Police Station. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defacto complainant that the respondents-A1 and A2 have mis-utilised the funds of the petitioner’s company and created one more institution by name Hekageon Business Solutions, registered in the name of their family members and diverted the entire business of Hutrangz to their new venture, by changing the passwords of the institution and have created hurdles to run the common business, which caused loss to the petitioner to a tune of Rs. 25.00 lakhs in the common business and further, they failed to comply with the conditions imposed earlier in the bail order and hence, it is a fit case to cancel the bail granted to the Accused. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Accused that it is the inherent right of the respondents-Accused to seek and obtain bail and it is not open to the petitioner-defacto complainant to file this type of applications and there is no perversity in the bail order granted by this Court and all necessary details were considered while granting the anticipatory bail, therefore there are no grounds to allow the application. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in SandlaDamodar V. State of A.P. and Others 1997 (2) A LD (Crl.) AP 318 and Aslam Babalal Desai V. State of Maharashtra 1992 SCC (Crl.) 870 and has submitted further that the prosecution alone got right to seek for the cancellation of bail and neither the defacto-complainant nor any other person interested got any locus-standi to do so and if such applications are permitted to be filed and allowed, there would be spate of litigation. In the above decisions, observations were made accordingly which are applicable here. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the Respondent-Accused has complied with the directions given in the bail order earlier. In the above decisions, observations were made accordingly which are applicable here. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the Respondent-Accused has complied with the directions given in the bail order earlier. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there is no perversity in the order passed by this Court and all the relevant details were considered while granting anticipatory bail. Virtually, I see no merits in the application and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.