Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1109 (AP)

Shaik Mohammed Samdani v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-14

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2024
ORDER : This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.1 seeking regular bail in Crime No.246 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B read with 34 I.P.C. 2. Heard Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. Perused the record. 4. Case diary discloses that on 04.05.2024 Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District, lodged a written information upon which F.I.R. was registered on 04.05.2024. The petitioner was deputed by APMDC and accordingly in the IT Section of the Department of Mines and Geology he has been working as Data Entry Operator (DEO). He was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody on 03.06.2024. His earlier bail applications were dismissed by learned Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge. Investigation in this case has been in progress. 5. Allegations are that Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh grants leases of major and minor minerals and for that purpose they invite tenders and conduct auctions. There is AP E-Procurement Portal through which the process is done. The bidding companies had to pay security amounts to a tune of Rs.4.975 Crores. On 26.05.2021 tenders were invited for auction of Devada Manganese Block in Vizianagaram. Several bidders participated in it and they made their requisite bid security deposits. On 24.08.2021 auction was completed and the highest bidder was Mahalaxmi Minerals. The usual procedure is to refund the bid security amounts to those bidders who were not successful and this was to be done through AP E-Procurement Portal. Accordingly, for all the other bidders their security bid amounts were refunded except for one company. M/s. PM Granite and Export Private Limited, which was not successful in the bid, was aggrieved and filed a case before this Court and consequently refund of bid amount was withheld. Subsequently, the said company consulted the Department for refund of its bid security amount of Rs.4.975 Crores. When the office verified, it was noticed that on 12.05.2023 the amount meant for this company was refunded to another company by name RK Trade and Logistic and that was done without the authorization from the Director of Mines and Geology. Subsequently, the said company consulted the Department for refund of its bid security amount of Rs.4.975 Crores. When the office verified, it was noticed that on 12.05.2023 the amount meant for this company was refunded to another company by name RK Trade and Logistic and that was done without the authorization from the Director of Mines and Geology. It was in that context the Department made further verifications and noticed six other such transactions. The Department made its own enquiries and found this petitioner who was in close connections with RK Trade and Logistic transferred the funds to that company and he did it in collusion with other named individuals. 6. The contentions of the petitioner are that only on suspicion this case is registered and it is a false case and no specific overt acts are alleged against him. Petitioner himself had no jurisdiction or authority or power to reimburse the funds and he is made a scapegoat by the superiors to save their own skin. That he was originally taken to custody on 31.05.2024 but his arrest was not recorded and only on filing a petition under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, his arrest was shown on 03.06.2024. The job of this petitioner permits him to enter the details, scan and upload the documents and do the typographical works and then do all those works that are instructed to him by the superiors. He is innocent. 7. As against that, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that substantial amount of incriminating material was collected as against the petitioner who played vital role in this crime. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though Section 409 I.P.C. is alleged the said provision does not apply. If Section 409 I.P.C. does not apply, then the rest of the offences alleged against him are punishable with less than ten years imprisonment. In such cases, in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of Cr.P.C., on completion of 60 days of custody if the charge sheet is not filed, he is entitled to bail by default. In this regard learned counsel cites Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 . 8. In such cases, in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of Cr.P.C., on completion of 60 days of custody if the charge sheet is not filed, he is entitled to bail by default. In this regard learned counsel cites Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 . 8. In the case at hand, petitioner having been remanded to judicial custody on 03.06.2024 and the charge sheet having not been filed and the period of custody exceeded 60 days but has not reached 90 days. The submission made above requires scrutiny. Section 409 I.P.C. applies to anyone who held dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant and commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property. The facts alleged in this case indicate that the petitioner is a public servant working with Department of Mines and Geology and held control over the systems and utilizing them he allegedly transferred funds to others without authorizations and such transfer of funds were made not to the persons entitled to but were made to others who were not entitled to receive such funds. Therefore, at this stage of the case, it cannot be said that Section 409 I.P.C. does not have any application. Since Section 409 I.P.C. provides punishment of imprisonment of life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. The question is whether the period of custody could be 60 days or 90 days for securing default bail. In the above cited Rakesh Kumar Paul’s case (supra), their Lordships had explained where offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, with minimum imprisonment of ten years, Section 167(2)(a)(i) would apply and accused can apply for default bail if investigation agency does not file charge sheet within 90 days. The present case falls in that category. Looking at the nature of the offence and the way in which it is allegedly committed and the stage of investigation, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for granting bail. 9. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.