Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 755 (AP)

P. v. Ramana Murthy VS State of A. P.

2014-06-19

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

body2014
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by petitioner/sole accused in Crime No. 259/2014 of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. 2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The substance of the complaint shows from the co-employees that the accused P.V.R. Murthy collected amounts as usual under Dasara scheme to distribute to the employees at the Dasara period an amount of nearly Rs. 10.00 lakhs which comes to Rs. 9,74,300/- from the so called disclosure statement of the accused dated 21.04.2014 and failed to pay and revolted for their asking including in abusive language. The contention of the petitioner including in the bail application that it is only Dasara mamools baseless as he collected a huge amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as per the accusation and it indicates he chooses no regard to truth even in so saying in the bail application. The other contention is so called confession is obtained by force. Had it been true being an employee, the consequences that has to be faced during the course of trial, he should have given atleast a notice to the police of so called testimonial compulsion to retract which he did not so far. As far as the present case concerned, there is a prima facie allegation of collecting of money by luring to distribute at the time of Dasara, he is not entitled to the concession of the anticipatory bail. 4. However, taking consideration of the fact that it is open to recover amounts by the victims by way of other means viz. by filing civil suits since he is a permanent employee and by keeping him in prison at this stage will serve no purpose. 4. However, taking consideration of the fact that it is open to recover amounts by the victims by way of other means viz. by filing civil suits since he is a permanent employee and by keeping him in prison at this stage will serve no purpose. By considering all these aspects, and considering the personal liberty of the accused though he is not entitled to the concession of the anticipatory bail, this application is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner-accused to surrender before the Learned Magistrate concerned to take into custody under Section 44 Cr.P.C. by virtue of this order and move before the learned Magistrate for regular bail and with notice to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned and in such an event, the learned Judge/Magistrate shall consider for granting of bail in favour of the petitioner with necessary conditions preferably on the same day if not atleast by the next day. 5. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.