Telangana High Court
Tummala Siva Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.857 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 8 and 9 under Sections 437 and 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking regular bail to the petitioners/Accused in Crime No.221 of 2022 of P.S. EOW Team, CCS DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 5 of The Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'TSPDFE Act').
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 18.10.2022 at 7:45 P.M., the de-facto complainant, a senior citizen aged about 65 years lodged a complaint stating that one Kshitij Kumar (accused No.7), who was a student of her husband used to interact with them, approached them stating that he was working for a investment company and offered to take care of their finances. Accordingly, they made investments through Kshitij Kumar, who gained their confidence. In the month of May/June, 2020, Kshitij Kumar strongly recommended to make investments in three entities under the name and style of M/s. Grow Magnet Ltd., M/s. Validus Projects and M/s. Pro Design Creative Advertising representing that they were Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.P.No.857_2024 offering to give good results and also represented that their investments would be safe and secure and stated that they were offering interest around 12% per annum payable every month. Believing him, the complainant and her husband invested a total amount of Rs.1,31,74,000/-. After that they received monthly interest till December, 2021. Thereafter the said company stopped payment of interest. They asked Kshitij Kumar about the payment of interest, but he was postponing the same and when they asked to refund their investment, he evaded.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the CCS Police of Detective Department registered a case in Crime No.221 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, read with Section 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the offence under Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act was also added. On 09.01.2024, the petitioners-accused Nos.8 and 9 were arrested on PT warrant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the investments were made voluntarily by the complainant and her husband, as such, Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act would not attract. Admittedly, the petitioners were not the persons who deceived them. The petitioners were Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.857_2024 also victims since they also invested money being pooled in the transaction, cheques were issued to the victims by the petitioners herein and further contended that the petitioners were taken on PT warrant in cases one after the other and relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Tupakula Appa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 wherein it was held that:
"when several cases were registered against the same persons pertaining to the same police station, the police could have shown their arrest in other cases also simultaneously, but not showing the same warrant a conclusion that they were deemed to be in custody in respect of the other crimes also although formal arrest was not shown in the other cases."
and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
6. On a perusal of the above judgment, it would disclose that a caution was also made by the Court stating that:
"...However, it is needless to say whether the bail can be granted or not, depends upon the facts of each case and would be left to the discretion of the Court to exercise the same on merits in each case."
7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail to the petitioners.
1
2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 67 (AP) Dr.GRR,J 4 Crl.P.No.857_2024
8. Perused the record.
9. The record would disclose that the petitioner No.1-accused No.8 was the proprietor of M/s. Grow Magnet India Ltd. and petitioner No.2-accused No.9 was one of the proprietors of M/s. Validus Projects and they induced the complainant and other victims who were senior citizens and collected a huge amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/- promising to give good returns and failed to return the same and cheated them by not paying interest or refunding the principal amount. As such, it is considered not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners.
10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J Date : 05.02.2024 ss