Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 568 (AP)

Bandi Venkateswarlu v. State of A. P.

2021-08-24

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2021
ORDER : Lalitha Kanneganti, J. 1. This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A-23 in connection with Crime No. 03/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 of Anti Corruption Bureau, CIU, A.P., Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention for Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of prosecution and relevant portion of the complaint against the petitioner is that the Government of India enacted the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for extending Primary, Secondary and Super Specialty Health Care Services to the employees, who are earning less than Rs. 21,000/- who are covered under ESI scheme are entitled for medical facilities for self and dependents. The employees of State Insurance Scheme are being monitored by the Department of Medical Services and it comes under the control of Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training &Factories. The Director, IMS (DIMS) is the head of the Department to implement ESI scheme. Two Joint Directors (Vijayawada and Kadapa) are working under the Director, IMS to look after the supervision of ESI dispensaries and Panel Clinics. It has come to the notice of the Government that the Directors and Staff of Insurance Medical Services (IMS), AP, Vijayawada during the period 2014-2019 procured drugs and medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment, laboratory kits, furniture etc., and also purchased bio-metric machines at higher rates by violating the established procedure. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that on perusal of the distribution agreement between HemoCue India (DHR Holding India Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s. Omni Health Care, Hyderabad, it is noticed that petitioner, Manager, M/s. Omni Health Care, Hyderabad signed on the agreement on behalf of M/s. Omni Health Care, Hyderabad, This shows that the petitioner also colluded with Smt. K. Sujatha, Proprietor of M/s. Omni Health Care and others and participated in the conspiracy for supply of HemoCue Lab Kits to ESI, A.P., at exorbitant rates through circular trading among their four firms. The petitioner colluded with AO-18 and entered into criminal conspiracy with another with an intention to cause wrongful loss to Government Exchequer and wrongful gain to M/s. Legend Enterprises. 4. The petitioner colluded with AO-18 and entered into criminal conspiracy with another with an intention to cause wrongful loss to Government Exchequer and wrongful gain to M/s. Legend Enterprises. 4. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas representing Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB cases appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that initially the petitioner is not arrayed as accused. For the first they found the allegations in the remand report wherein it is stated that "the DIMS, AP purchased Hemocue Cuvettes for Quantitative Hb 301 Analyser-4 X 50 vial-OM at the rate of Rs. 16,500/- per each box and Cuvettes for Quantitative WBC Analyser 4 X 40=160/P-OM at the rate of Rs. 36,800/- per each box. But, M/s. Hemocue, the manufacturer of Hb and WBC Cuvettes, supplied the above product to its distributor M/s. Omni Health Care at the rate of Rs. 3,300/- and Rs. 11,800/- per box/Unit respectively. In Open market other distributors are selling Hb Cuvettes (with 45% profit), at Rs. 4,800/- per unit/Box and selling WBC Cuvettes (with 27% profit), at Rs. 15,000/- per unit/Box". He submitted that the petitioner is an employee of M/s. Omni Medi and he is no way connected with the alleged offences. On the basis of remand report, police remanded the petitioner to judicial custody for a period of 14 days without issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. amounts to violation of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 . Learned counsel further submits that A-18 has already enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.08.2021 in Crl.P. No. 4442 of 2021 passed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner's case may be considered for grant of bail. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for ACB submits that the petitioner without approaching the Court below, straight away approached this Court. She further submits that investigation is pending, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses directly or indirectly and jeopardize the investigation process. She submits that the offences comes under the category of economic offences, where crores of public money is involved, as such the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage. 7. She submits that the offences comes under the category of economic offences, where crores of public money is involved, as such the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage. 7. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with and the larger interest of the public/State. No doubt, the offence alleged against the petitioner is a socio-economic offence, which not only affects the economy, but also peoples' faith in the system, but that cannot be a ground to keep the accused in jail. The respondent-ACB failed to place before this Court any material to show that there is likelihood of tampering with the evidence and the process of investigation will be hampered if the petitioner is released on bail. This Court granted bail to A-18 and A-20, further this petitioner is only an employee of M/s. Omni Medi. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/ A-23 shall be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 03/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 of Anti Corruption Bureau, CIU, A.P., Vijayawada, on his executing self bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The petitioner/A-23 shall cooperate with investigating agency. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.