Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 670 (AP)

Bestha Sekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-04-04

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2023
JUDGMENT B.S. Bhanumathi, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed seeking bail under Section 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') to the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 in Crime No.02/RCT-ATP/2023 of A.C.B. Anantapuram Police Station, registered on 27.02.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.S.M.Subhani, learned standing counsel representing the respondent/State. 3. The case of prosecution is that on 27-02-2023 when a trap was laid by the investigating officer through the defacto complainant as A.1 to A.4 demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.30,000/- putting the defacto complainant under the pressure to pay the same threatening to cancel the GST permanent registration or converting the same as temporary one for conducting exhibitions and in that connection, there were talks between the defacto complainant and the accused over phone as well and their voice conversations were also recorded on 23.02.2023. Further, on 27.02.2023, a trap was laid and the accused were caught red handed receiving Rs.30,000/- as bribe. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a false case was foisted at the behest of Edika Prasad whose name is referred in the FIR itself to indicate that he is the person behind getting trap laid and that Edika Prasad developed grudge against A.O.1, since A.O.1 held Edika Prasad responsible to pay Rs.25crores as GST at different spells for example transaction vide Case ID No.AD370922001206E-IGST/CST/ SGST/01, dated 27-01-2023 for Rs.13.86 crores. It is further submitted that the petitioners were also made part of the whole event, in view of the grudge bore by Edika Prasad. 5. He further submitted that the material part of the investigation was completed and the statement of defacto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. It is essentially argued by the learned counsel that the registration given to the defacto complainant is under CGST whereas A-1 is working in State GST and has no control over grant, cancellation or alteration of the registration under CGST and therefore, no offence could be made out. It is also submitted that though the investigation team said to have recorded the voice conversation prior to the date of the alleged commission of offence, no such conversation was recorded at that time inspite of saying that they had a telephonic conversation on that day as well. It is also submitted that though the investigation team said to have recorded the voice conversation prior to the date of the alleged commission of offence, no such conversation was recorded at that time inspite of saying that they had a telephonic conversation on that day as well. He further submitted that the whole effort is vindictive. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 28-02-2023 and their continuation in custody is no more required. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondent filed counter opposing the petition and submitted that the investigation conducted so far revealed the commission of offence and more over, hands of A.O.2, A.O.3 and A.O.4 tested positive when the chemical examination was conducted and further that there is voice recording of conversation on 23.02.2023 reduced into writing and therefore there is well founded accusation against the petitioners. He further submitted that the statement of defacto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded and that material witnesses were examined in the investigation. He further submitted that since sanction is required to file the charge sheet, it is under process. 7. Without going into the merits on technical aspects, which are raised about the cancellation or alteration of the registration granted, since material part of investigation is completed and the statement of defacto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, the petitioners can be granted bail with certain conditions. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners/A.3 (Sri Bestha Sekhar) and A.4 (Chennaiah Jyothiram) shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool and subject to complying the following conditions: i. The petitioners/ A.3 (Sri Bestha Sekhar) and A.4 (Chennaiah Jyothiram) shall appear before the Station House Officer, on every Sunday between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. starting after of his release until further orders or till charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier; ii. The petitioners/A.3 (Sri Bestha Sekhar) and A.4 (Chennaiah Jyothiram) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer; iii. The petitioners/A.3 (Sri Bestha Sekhar) and A.4 (Chennaiah Jyothiram) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer; iii. They shall co-operate with the investigation, and shall not tamper the evidence. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.