Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 630 (AP)

Yenuganti Ramarao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-30

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
JUDGMENT M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C, by the sole accused in Crime No.146 of 2020 of Darsi police station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC to enlarge him on bail as he is in Judicial custody since 19.08.2020. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before Darsi police station on 07.08.2020 alleging that the petitioner is carrying on real estate, finance and chit fund business and the de facto complainant became a subscriber of Rs.10,00,000/- chit and similarly under the pretext of giving partnership in the real estate and finance business, the petitioner took Rs.2.00 crores and also collected Rs.2.80 crores as handloan and the petitioner also collected an amount of about Rs.15.00 crores from the villagers and when the de facto complainant demanded for repayment of amount, he failed to repay the same and thereby the petitioner/ accused committed offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of A.P. Prevention of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act. On the strength of the complaint, the police registered the crime and issued FIR for various offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 5 of A.P. Prevention of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the date of remand of the petitioner, he is in Judicial custody and till now six witnesses were examined and the de facto complainant or any of the villagers failed to produce a scrap of paper to show that they advanced any amount to the petitioner and failed to establish that the de facto complainant or any other villager deposited any amount with this petitioner or in the partnership business. In the absence of any material, the registration of a crime and detaining the petitioner in prison is a serious illegality and thereby requested to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor mainly contended that six witnesses alone were examined as on the date of remand and further investigation is going on and therefore at this stage the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail and requested to dismiss the petition. 5. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor mainly contended that six witnesses alone were examined as on the date of remand and further investigation is going on and therefore at this stage the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail and requested to dismiss the petition. 5. As seen from the allegations made in the complaint, the amounts advanced by the de facto complainant to the petitioner i.e., Rs.2.00 crores and Rs.2.80 crores is an independent transaction, it will not fall within the definition of Deposit under A.P. Prevention of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act. However, collection of Rs.15.00 crores as alleged in the complaint by way of deposit in the finance business at Rajampalli village may constitute an offence punishable under Section 5 of A.P. Prevention of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act and other offences under Penal Code. On the other hand, the investigation is not completed and it is in the mid way. The proof in regard to deposit of amount is totally based on documentary evidence available with the villagers and in the office maintained by this petitioner while carrying on financiel business. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the documentary evidence and disable the investigating agency to collect the evidence relating to the transaction pertaining to deposit. Hence I find no grounds to enlarge the petitioner on bail in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State through C.B.I vs. Amarmani Tripathi . I find that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.