Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 566 (AP)

B. Parvathi v. State of A. P.

2021-08-23

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2021
ORDER : (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) 1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking pre arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 214 of 2021 of Banaganapalli Police Station, Kurnool District for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). 2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to 8-8-2021, the accused Smt. Parvathi, the then Special Officer, Banaganapali Gram Panchayat, now working as Divisional Panchayat Officer, Dharmavaram, misappropriated the funds of Banaganapalli Grama Panchayat i.e., cash of Rs.62,92,843/- without bills and records and cash of Rs.2,29,34,808/- against the norms and Rules of Government and without prior permission from Government. After enquiry, the complainant Agraharam Srinivasulu, Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nandyal, gave report against the accused. 3. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 58 years and she is falsely implicated in this case basing on political reasons. He submits that de facto complainant was appointed as enquiry officer and he conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool. He submits that the accused received charge memo, dated 28-10-2020 through mail in the month of December, 2020 and after gap of 9 months, as per the instructions of the District Collector, the present complaint was filed. He drawn the attention of this Court to the proceeding issued by Collector in ROC No. 1222/Pts/A1/2019, dated 8-7-2021, based on the representation of the sitting MLA of Banaganapalli. When the departmental proceedings were initiated, petitioner has already submitted her explanation and departmental proceedings are pending as of now. It is submitted that against the proceedings of the Collector, dated 8-7-2021, petitioner also filed W.P. No. 15232 of 2021 and the same is pending for consideration. After filing the Writ Petition, the present complaint was registered. He submits that except the statement of the de facto complainant, there is no material available against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he case may be considered for grant of bail. 5. After filing the Writ Petition, the present complaint was registered. He submits that except the statement of the de facto complainant, there is no material available against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he case may be considered for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed counter along with other material papers before this Court and submits that the petitioner is involved in misappropriation of amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- and odd and basing on the proceedings of the District Collector, the report was lodged and the complaint was registered. In the counter, it is stated how the petitioner has misappropriated the amounts and it is stated that without any prior permission from the Government or resolution of Gram Panchayat, the petitioner allotted some sites to private persons and caused loss to the Gram Panchayat. Investigation so far discloses that the accused has misappropriated the funds of the Government to a tune of Rs.2,92,27,651/-. He further submits that the investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and to collect the material documents from the complainant. If the petitioner is granted pre arrest bail, she may abscond, tamper with the evidence and hamper the investigation process. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The allegation against the petitioner is that while she was working as a Special Officer, she has misappropriated amounts to a tune of Rs.2,29,34,808/-. It is the case of the petitioner that as of now the petitioner is not working at that place, as such there cannot be any apprehension for the police the she may tamper the evidence or she may influence the witnesses. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is not working at that place as of now. The other averments in the counter that the petitioner may jump the bail, it is difficult to secure her presence without there being any material does not seems to be valid reasons and further petitioner who is public servant, is working as a Divisional Panchayat Officer. 8. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court while granting bail, Court has to take into consideration several factors. 8. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court while granting bail, Court has to take into consideration several factors. i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in this matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." (Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 69 (SC) : AIR 2011 SC 312 ) 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and as the petitioner is not working in the said place, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. 10. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and as the petitioner is not working in the said place, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 214 of 2021 of Banaganapalli Police Station, Kurnool District on her executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Banaganapalli Police Station, Kurnool District. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.