K Sujatha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3045 AP

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4442 of 2021

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking regular bail to

the petitioner/A-20 in connection with Crime No.03/RCO-CIU-

ACB/2020 on the file of Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.I.U, A.P.

Vijayawada for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7,

8, 9, 13(1)(a) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment)

Act, 2018 and Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120-B

r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").

2. The case of the prosecution and the relevant portion of the

complaint against the petitioner is that the Government of India

enacted the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 for extending

Primary, Secondary and Super Specially Health Care Services to

the employees, who are earning less than Rs.21,000/- who are

covered under ESI scheme are entitled for medical facilities for self

and dependents. The employees of State Insurance Scheme are

being monitored by the Department of Medical Services and it

comes under the control of Principal Secretary, Labour,

Employment, Training & Factories. The Director, IMS (DIMS) is the

head of the Department to implement ESI scheme. Two Joint

Directors (Vijayawada and Kadapa) are working under the Director,

IMS to look after the supervision of ESI Dispensaries and Panel

Clinics. It has come to the notice of the Government that the

Directors and Staff of Insurance Medical Services (IMS), AP,

Vijayawada during the period 2014-2019 procured drugs and

medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment, laboratory kits,

furniture etc., and also purchased bio-metric machines at higher

rates by violating the established procedure.

3. It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner who is

A-20 along with A-19, A-21 to A-24 colluded with AO-18 and

entered into criminal conspiracy with one another with an

intention to cause wrongful loss to the Government exchequer and

wrongful gain to M/s Legend Enterprises, which belongs to A-21

and A-19. It is the case of prosecution that AO-18 committed

criminal misconduct by allegedly allowing A-19 to A-24 to supply

HemoCue Lab Kits with exorbitant rates without following due

procedure. It is also alleged that A-23 colluded with the petitioner,

who is proprietor of Omni Health Care and others and participated

in the conspiracy for supply of HemoCue Lab Kits to ESI, A.P., at

exorbitant rates through circular trading among their four firms. It

is further alleged that A-21 represented to DIMS that his firm is

authorized distributor for the products manufactured by M/s

HemoCue and the same was denied by the company. It is stated

that enquiry revealed that A-19 used to collect purchase orders

from DIMS and delivered the kits etc. manufactured by M/s

HemoCue from petitioner's firm to DIMS through M/s Omni Medi,

M/s Omni Enterprises showing that the material is being supplied

by A-21's firm. It is stated that addresses of all these firms is one

and the same.

4. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri S.M.Subhani, Special Public Prosecutor for

ACB cases appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that the only allegation

against the petitioner in the remand report is that Omni Health

Care (of which, petitioner is the proprietor) purchased the products

from HemoCue India at lower prices and they did not directly

supply the same to IMS AP (ESI) and the same products (with

same batch numbers) were supplied to IMS AP (ESI) at exorbitant

rates by M/s Legend Enterprises. They submitted fake

authorization letters of Hemocue India to IMS AP, though it was

not authorized distributor to Homecue India. He submits that

except this there are no allegations against the petitioner and there

is no relationship between IMS AP and the petitioner's firm nor any

material was supplied by the petitioner's firm to the IMS AP (ESI).

He submits that the petitioner's firm is no way concerned with the

transaction between M/s Legend Enterprises and IMS AP (ESI) and

though the petitioner is unconnected with any of the alleged

offences, she has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits

that while arraying the petitioner as an accused, the investigating

agency failed to take into consideration the documents, which

clearly shows that petitioner has no involvement in any of these

transactions.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner herein

who is wife of A-19 has been falsely implicated solely on the

ground that she is the proprietor of Omni Health Care. He submits

that even in the State of Telangana several malicious cases were

initiated against the petitioner and husband of the petitioner.

Telangana High Court granted bail in all the cases to her husband

and assailing the same, the ACB preferred SLPs before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, which were dismissed. He submits that the

petitioner filed quash petition vide Crl.P.No.102 of 2020 before the

Telangana High Court, wherein the investigating agency was

directed not to take any coercive steps against her and the said

order is still subsisting. In another F.I.R No.4 of 2020, wherein

similar kind of allegations are made by the ACB, the Telangana

High Court granted bail to the petitioner. He submits that without

following procedure, the police went to the residence of petitioner

on 04.08.2021 and detained her and the petitioner was remanded

on the same day for 14 days. He submits that no notice under

Section 41-A of Cr.P.C was issued which is in clear violation of

guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v.

State of Bihar1.

7. Learned senior counsel further submits that even as per the

allegations in the remand report, it is financial loss to the

Government exchequer and financial gain to A-19 and A-21 and

the petitioner has nothing to do with any of these allegations and it

is not the case of ACB that the petitioner was benefitted by any of

these transactions. He submits that it is purely business relation

where the petitioner's firm supplied material to A-19's firm and no

criminal liability can be fastened. Custody petition was filed by

ACB and the Court below has granted custody and now the entire

evidence is with the ACB and the petitioner is languishing in jail

from 04.08.2021 and being lady, her case may be considered for

grant of bail.

8. Per contra, Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Special Public

Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submits that M/s

(2014) 8 SCC 273

Omni Health Care purchased the products from HemoCue India at

lower prices and they did not directly supply the same to IMS, AP

(ESI) and the same products (with same batch numbers) were

supplied to IMS, AP (ESI) at exorbitant rates by M/s Legend

Enterprises by submitting fake authorization letters of HemoCue

India to IMS, AP though it was not the authorized distributor of

HemoCue India. He submits that the petitioner colluded with

other accused and participated in conspiracy for supply HemoCue

Lab Kits to ESI, AP at exorbitant rates. He submits that three

firms i.e. M/s Omni Medi, Hyd, M/s Omni Enterprises, Hyd and

M/s Omni Health Care Hyd are in the same address i.e. Door

No.6-3-855/10/A, Sampathji Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

He submits that the petitioner along with other accused has

caused huge loss of Rs.3,55,43,134/- to Government exchequer

and wrongful gain to M/s Legend Enterprises i.e. A-19's firm.

9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that during the

course of investigation it is revealed that one Cherukuri Nagaraju,

who is the employee of M/s Omni Medi has personally collected the

purchase orders from IMS Directorate on behalf of M/s Legend

Enterprises and M/s Omni Medi in spite of having knowledge that

he is no way associated with M/s Legend Enterprises. He submits

that at the behest of husband of petitioner, he used to execute all

the illegal activities for pecuniary gain for himself and for company.

He submits that the investigation revealed that A-19 to A-24

colluded with AO-18 and entered into criminal conspiracy with one

another with an intention to cause wrongful loss to Government

exchequer and wrongful gain to M/s Legend Enterprises and

finally to A-19 and other accused. AO-18 committed criminal

misconduct by allegedly allowing A-19 to A-24 to supply HemoCue

Lab Kits with exorbitant rates without following due procedure. He

submits that the petitioner and other accused as habitual

offenders, who involved in similar cases and even in the State of

Telangana also similar cases were registered against the petitioner.

He submits that they have to apprehend the other accused and the

investigation is pending, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there

is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence and influence the

witnesses directly or indirectly and jeopardize the investigation

process.

10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the following

judgments -

a) Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. CBI2.

b) State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi3.

c) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and another4.

d) P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement5.

e) Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharastra and another6.

f) Kaladindi Sanyasi Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

(Crl.P.No.1932 of 2018 dated 08.03.2018).

g) Dr.Chinthala Krishnappa Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh (Crl.P.No.3891 of 2021 dated 15.09.2020).

h) R.Ravi Tejasri and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

(Crl.P.No.4379 of 2020 dated 04.11.2020).

(2012) 4 SCC 134

(2005) 8 SCC 21

(2004) 7 SCC 528

2019 SCC OnLine SC 1549

(2014) 16 SCC 623

He submits that the present offence comes under the

category of economic offence, where crores of public money is

involved, as such the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage.

11. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondents and

perused the record.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs.

Rajesh Ranjan and Ors7 has observed thus:

11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are,

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

13. It is settled law that the Court before granting bail shall be

prima facie satisfied that the accused if enlarged on bail will not be

in a position to tamper with the evidence. When the prosecution

makes the allegation of tampering with the evidence, it is the duty

MANU/SC/0214/2004 = 2004 Crl.L.J 1796

of the Court to satisfy itself whether there is any basis for that and

in a mechanical way it cannot be accepted.

14. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about the fact that

entire material evidence is with the prosecution and the petitioner

was in remand from the last 14 days, even the custody of the

petitioner was also granted. While granting bail, the Court has to

keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in

support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction

will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are

peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the

presence of accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the

witness being tampered with and the larger interest of the

Public/State.

15. Petitioner was also accused in other cases in the State of

Telangana, wherein Telangana High Court granted bail and it is

not the case of ACB that after bail was granted, the petitioner has

violated the conditions of bail and hampered the investigation

process or influenced the witnesses. No doubt the offence alleged

against the petitioner is a socio-economic offence, which not only

affects the economy, but also peoples' faith in the system, but that

cannot be a ground to keep the accused in jail. The respondent-

ACB failed to place before this Court any material to show that

there is likelihood of tampering with the evidence and the process

of investigation will be hampered if the petitioner is released on

bail. Hence, the Court is prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case

for granting bail.

16. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner /

A-20 shall be released on bail in respect of Crime No.03/RCO-CIU-

ACB/2020 on the file of Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.I.U, A.P.

Vijayawada on executing a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each for a

likesum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB

Cases, Vijayawada. The petitioner/A-20 shall cooperate with

investigating agency.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are

closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

15th August, 2021

PVD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4442 of 2021

16th August, 2021

PVD