The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine; it should only be provided when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Accused/Petitioner took up the job with the reference of relatives of personnel of the management as an employee of the profit shoe company. The Accused was given an appointment in the Accounts Department, and the Petitioner’s primary duty was to oversee company accounts deposits, transfers, withdrawals, and other bank transactions. However, the Petitioner transferred funds and made withdrawals attuning to an amount of Rs.1,35,38,667/- and the Petitioner resorted to fraudulent practices to misuse company money for his own personal gains. The case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409, and 420 of IPC. The present criminal petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the FIR lodged by the complainant was completely false and frivolous and the ingredients of the offences are not attracted to the present case. It was furthermore contended that mere breach of trust would not be sufficient unless there is clear evidence of dishonest intention to attract the alleged offenses; also, the case is of civil nature and there is civil recourse to recovering the money without initiating criminal proceedings.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that anticipatory bail should only be issued when the court is certain that extraordinary circumstances call for such exceptional circumstances. It should not be granted on a regular basis. In light of the accusations, taking into account the gravity of the offense and the possible punishment, the petitioner has not established a prima facie case for bail under Section 438 CrPC.
It was furthermore observed that it cannot be said that section 409 IPC does not apply just because the Petitioner was appointed as a bank clerk in the Accounts Department. The main reason for this is that the prosecution claims the petitioner misled the business while acting as a factor attorney and agent. The relationship between a principal and an agent may be established through necessity, by inference of law from the parties' actions or circumstances, or both. Primarily, the material on record available indicates that the Petitioner was entrusted with property by the Complainant while doing his duties. After the entrustment is approved, the petitioner must at the very least demonstrate how the entrusted property was handled.
It was noted that the merits of the accusations in the FIR should not be examined by the courts while a police investigation is pending. Conversely, the investigation needs to be allowed to be finished by the police. To proceed with an investigation based on a First Information Report, however, all that needs to be demonstrated is that the contents of the report, when taken at face value, establish the existence of an offense. The prima facie or probable case test is only necessary to be demonstrated at the time of framing of charge.
The court furthermore noted that the investigation is still pending, there can be a threat to the witnesses, and the accusations are grave in nature.
Based on these considerations, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal petition.
Case title: Venkateswara Rao Balusupati V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9966/2023
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :