Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 536 (AP)

Mutlapudi Anjaneyulu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-20

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - The petitioner who is A-2 filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.74 of 2020 on the file of Pedana Police Station, Krishna District, wherein he is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The Deputy General Manager of the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (for short "KDCC Bank") has given a complaint in Pedana Police Station on 10.03.2020 stating that 17 Secured Overdraft Loans were sanctioned at the Pedana Branch of KDCC Bank for a sum of Rs.4.25 crores. During the internal enquiry, it is found that this batch of 17 SOD loans sanctioned from February, 2016 to August, 2016 are full of irregularities from the beginning to the end. It is further stated in the complaint that prior to sanction of loan, the property offered as pledge has to be inspected personally and physically & verified by the AGM, who is designated as Nodal Officer to a few branches including Pedana Branch. Smt.P.Varalamma, AGM is the Nodal Officer having jurisdiction over this Pedana Branch and she did not carry out any inspection / verification in this regard. Instead, the prime suspect (the author of the entire fraud and the major beneficiary of the funds misappropriated) Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM, incharge of NFS (Non-farm Sector) at Head Office has created record as if he carried out the inspection and personal verification of the properties offered as pledge to this batch of loans and not P.Varalamma, AGM, the Nodal Officer concerned. 3. It is further stated in the complaint that the personal inspection and physical verification and valuation of the properties offered as security or pledge has to be carried out at the branch level by the Branch Manager M.Anjayenulu (A-2) and Supervisor K.Sudheer, as they have to accompany the AGM concerned who is the Nodal Officer. Instead, these two officials have shown in the records as having followed all the procedures as they are in league with Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM at the Head Office. 4. Instead, these two officials have shown in the records as having followed all the procedures as they are in league with Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM at the Head Office. 4. The complaint further reveals that the scrutiny of the loan proposals of this batch of 17 SOD loans for Rs.4.25 crores was carried out by Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM, Smt.V.Nirajini, Deputy GM and B.L.Chandra Sekhar, General Manager and the batch of 17 SOD loans for Rs.4.25 crores was sanctioned by the then CEO T.Veerababu, retired in the year 2016, even though none of the loan applications were supported by original of Title Deeds, Legal Opinion, Field Inspection Report etc. 5. It was averred in the complaint that it is learnt that Mukku Ratna Pulakara Rao and Mukku Venkateswaramma have confided that 15 loans sanctioned in August 2016 and to which they stood as surety aggregating to 3.75 crores was utilized by Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM and all the 15 borrowers and his benamis. One Vemula Panduranga Babu, one of the 15 loanees in the schedule, confided that he had not availed any loan and his signature must have been forged by Kagitha Ramakrishna. 6. This is the second bail application filed by the petitioner and the earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2339 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court on 08.07.2020. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Special Public Prosecutor for CID. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier bail application, he could not place certain relevant records, which specifies the role of the petitioner at every stage of loan and as those documents are crucial, he has come up with the present bail application. Learned counsel submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that some of the loans were disbursed by way of cheques and cash was paid on those cheques at the counter of Pedana Branch. Learned counsel submits that the copies of the conversion proceedings, circular of bank, mortgage deed and encumbrance certificate, which are filed along with the bail application clearly shows the role of the petitioner in granting loans. 9. Learned counsel submits that the copies of the conversion proceedings, circular of bank, mortgage deed and encumbrance certificate, which are filed along with the bail application clearly shows the role of the petitioner in granting loans. 9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID submits that the investigation is at threshold and in view of pendency of Section 51 enquiry, all the relevant documents are lying with the bank and the respondent-police are yet to receive the same from the bank and hence, at this stage the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID and on perusal of the record, as rightly argued by the Special Public Prosecutor for CID, there are no changed circumstances in this case and the documents filed by the petitioner in no way improved the case of the petitioner. Moreover, as the investigation is at the threshold, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 11. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.