Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Pappireddigari Sravan Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2614 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2614 AP
Judgement Date : 26 July, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pappireddigari Sravan Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3996 OF 2021

ORDER:-

      This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre arrest

bail to the petitioner/Accused in the event of his arrest in

connection with unregistered crime which would be foisted against

the petitioner by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

appointed as Office Assistant in the 1st respondent company. He

is not a qualified Charted Accountant so also he is not incharge of

accounts of the company. The 1st respondent company is engaged

in the services of security and housekeeping.

3. Smt Sashirekha, who is one of the Directors of M/s.Builders

Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Security and Facility Solutions. Her

husband indulged in financial irregularities and did not properly

account the government with regard to the income of the

company. Action has been initiated by the statutory authorities

against the company for evasion of taxes and submitting false

accounts. The said Sashirekha and her husband used to transfer

the amounts to the bank account of the petitioner and they were

withdrawing the amount from the account of the petitioner.

4. While things stood thus, the 1st respondent company issued

a notice dt.24.05.2021 to the petitioner with the allegation that the

petitioner, who was appointed as Chief Financial Officer during the

period of August 2018 to April 2021, has misappropriated funds to

a tune of Rs.1,99,79,425/- by falsification of accounts of the

company and also by misappropriating the amounts embarked for

TDS, GST etc., the petitioner issued explanation dt.6.6.2021

explaining that he did not commit any financial irregularities and

did not misappropriate any amount of the company and later

petitioner came to know that 1st respondent company complained

against the petitioner in the police station.

5. Heard Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner never appointed as General Manager or Chief Financial

Officer in the company and he is working as an Office Assistant.

The petitioner is unconnected with the audit statements, making

statutory payments to the government authorities and the

company is in the habit of diversion of funds into personal

accounts and director of the company with fabricated documents

and on that DGGI Tricchy as holding enquiry. He relied on the

Apex Court judgment Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs., State of

Punjab and submits that filing of First Information Report is not a

condition for exercise of power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and

application for anticipatory bail can be considered if the petitioner

is able to show that there is a reason to believe that arrest for non

bailable offence, the Court may consider his request.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that so far they have not received any complaint and

there is no reasonable ground for apprehension of the petitioner.

8. Taking into consideration the notice issued by the company

and the averments in the reply notice appear that the petitioner

has reasonable grounds to believe that there is apprehension of

petitioner likely to be registered a non bailable offence. In view of

the same, respondents are directed to follow the procedure

contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued

by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1

scrupulously, if any complaint is made by the company. Any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

Date :26.07.2021 sj

(2014) 8 SCC 273

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3996 of 2021

26.07.2021

sj

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter