Smt Mahejabeen vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 769 AP

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

               Criminal Petition No.36 of 2021
ORDER:

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.")

seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused in the event of

their arrest in connection with Crime No.215 of 2019 of II Town

Police Station, Nandyala, Kurnool District, registered for the

offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of prosecution is that one Smt. M. Lakshmi

Chowdeswari, wife of M. Sudhakar, lodged a report with the

police on 07.12.2019, alleging that one Mr. Shaik Mahe Jabeen

and M. Marenna have established a society by name "Lubbus

Rural Development and Educational Society" in Nandyal that

she and some other women have undergone training therein;

that few months thereafter, they have taken an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from them stating that the amount was required

for office development and while promising that they would

arrange bank loans, obtained signatures in some Bank of India

slips and Andhra Bank and availed loans and utilized the

amounts, thus, cheated the de facto complainant Smt. M.

Lakshmi Chowdeswari.

3. The petitioners earlier filed Criminal Petition No.3527 of

2020 before this court seeking pre-arrest bail. This court by an

elaborate order dated 30.09.2020 dismissed the criminal 2 LK, J

CRLP.No.36 of 2021

petition with cogent reasons. Now, the petitioners have come up

with the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail.

4. Sri Chunduru Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioners,

while convincing this court with regard to change of

circumstances, placed a reliance on the judgment in Jagmohan

Bhal v. State (NCT) Delhi rendered by the Hon'able Apex Court

in Criminal Appeal No.2335 of 2014, dated 18.12.2014 and

contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the

anticipatory bail has been dismissed, a successive anticipatory

bail filed by the same person has to be placed before the Judge,

who dismissed earlier bail petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor placed a

reliance on the Three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court

in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu rendered in

Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl).No.213 of 2021, dated

28.01.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that as a

matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought

not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary sand the

status report, clearly indicated that the accused is absconding

and not cooperating with the investigation and that the specious

reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for

successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a

speaking order and that too by the same Judge.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and the orders passed by this court in Criminal Petition

No.3527 of 2020 dated 30.09.2020, this court do not find any 3 LK, J

CRLP.No.36 of 2021

change of circumstances to entertain the present criminal

petition, and hence, the criminal petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

____________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J Date: 11.02.2021

Ksn