Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 624 (AP)

Yanamala Guruvaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-07-07

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2022
JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 170 of 2021 of Gudur Police Station, Tirupati, registered for the offences punishable under 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioners purchased 96,064 Kgs of paddy from the complainant and other farmers on different dates for a total value of Rs. 15,01,853/- and paid Rs. 10,55,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 7,46,853/- to the farmers, but failed to repay the same. Later when the complainant and other farmers asked the petitioners to pay the balance amount, they assaulted them and thereby cheated the farmers. Hence, a report is lodged and basing on the said report, the present crime is registered. 3. Heard Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegations made in the complaint do not make out ingredients to constitute offence under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. He submits that to attract the ingredients of the alleged Sections, it is imperative on the part of the complaint to prima facie establish that there was an intention on the part of the petitioners to cheat or to defraud the complainant and others right from the inception. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2022). He submits that petitioners are falsely implicated in the crime and they are permanent residents of Amaravati, as such the question of their absconding does not arise. Hence, he prays to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submits that petitioner No. 1 is at large and investigation is still in progress. 6. Hence, he prays to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submits that petitioner No. 1 is at large and investigation is still in progress. 6. This Court is conscious of the parameters that are to be taken into consideration while dealing with bails as laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 SCC 694 which are as under: (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 other offences; (v) Where 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 the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 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 the 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. 7. 7. Thus, while granting bail the Courts have to consider the impact of grant of anticipatory bail. 8. In Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2005 (10) SCC 336 , 'it is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases of breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case.....' 9. In the present case a perusal of the complaint indicates that petitioners are father and son. They purchased paddy from the farmers and got the stock loaded in their lorry. The complaint also reveals that petitioners having purchased paddy from respective farmers by paying some amount out of total agreed amount and promising to pay the remaining amount later, failed to pay the same. Going by the complaint, the total amount due is approximately Rs. 7,46,853/-. Thus, prima facie it amounts to cheating. 10. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2000 (4) SCC 168 , the Hon'ble Apex Court distinguished between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. 11. A perusal of the complaint discloses that petitioners being traders purchased paddy from farmers for certain value and failed to pay the total value of the paddy. Though, this Court is not giving finding at this point of time, going by the complaint failure to pay the amount as agreed would prima facie constitute an offence of cheating. Hence, in view of the averments made in the complaint and in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as the deception was made at very inception, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed.