Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Uppalapu Srinivasa Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 June, 2021

Bench: D Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
:PRESENT: 4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

  

LA. No. 1 of 2021 in / and CRL.P. No. 3385 of 2021
&
LA.No. 1 of 20217 in / and Cri.P.No.3386 of 2021

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3385 OF 2021

4. Nalini Mohan Vallurupalli,, Aged about 56 Years/ Occ- Private Employee, $/0-
Vallurupalli Gangadhara Rao, R/o- Flat No-203. Vaishnavis Mayfair, Varalakshmi
Punam, 4th Line North Road, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada (Rural),
Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, 520007.

Petitioner/Accused No.4
AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Represented by S.H.O. Mangalagiri P.S, Guntur
District, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh( High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

_ Respondent

2. Gaddipati Srinivasarao, S/o. Kutumbarao, Aged about 43 years R/o D.No. 5-121, China Kakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

(Impleaded as per court order dated 40-06-2021 in LLA.No. 1 of Nat: in

GrLA.No.3385 of 2021)

Defacto Complainant

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner (Accused No.4) on bail in FIR.No.346 of 2021, dated 19.06.2021 registered/ lodged on the file ef Mangalagiri (Rural) P.S., Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh

L.A. No. 1 of 2021 IN CRL.P. No, 3385 of 2021

Between :-

Gaddipati Srinivasarao, S/o. Kutumbarao, R/o D.No. 5-121, China Kakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

.Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.2/De-factoComplainant AND

1.Nalini Mohan Vallurupalli, S/o. Vallurupallfi Gangadhara Rao, Occ : Private Employee, R/o. Flat NO. 203, Vaishnavis Mayfair, Varalakshmi Puram, 4"" | ine North Road, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Viiayawada (Rural), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh -520007.

Respondent/Petitioner/Accused No.4.

2.State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by SHO, Mangalagiri P.S., Guntur District, Rep. by through the Public Prosecutor, righ Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. :

..Respondent/Respondent/Complainant . . Respondents (Respondents in-do-) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in Cri.P., the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to implead Gaddipati Srinivasarao, S/o. Kutumbarao, aged about 43 years, R/o. D:No. 9-121, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District as Respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No. 3385 of 2021

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 3386 OF 2021

Between:

.NO.54-16-4/47A, Loyola College Road, Central Excise Colony, Near Central Excise Office, Vilayawada- 920008, Andhra Pradesh.

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Represented by S.H_O, Mangalagiri P.S, Guntur District, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

2. Gaddipati Srinivasarao, S/o. Kutumbarao, Aged about 43 years R/o D.No. 5-121, China Kakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. .

(Impleaded as per court order dated 30-06-2021 in LA.No. 1 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.3386 of 2021)

Respondents/Complainant

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in Support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner (Accused No.3) on bail in FIR.No346 of 2021, dated 19.08.2021 registered/ lodged on the file of Mangalagiri (Rural) P.S., Guntur-District, Andhra Pradesh.

LA.No. 4 of 2021 in Crl.P.No. 3386 of 2021 ;-

Between :-

Gaddipati Srinivasarao, S/o. Kutumbarao, aged about 43 years R/o D.No. 5-121, China Kakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

...Petitioner/Praposed Respondent No.2/De-factoComplainant AND

1.Uppalapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Uppalapu Venkateswara Rao, Rio. D.No. 54-16-1/17A, Loyola College Road, Central Excise Colony, Near Central Excise Office, Vijayawada -$20008, Andhra Pradesh. . Respondent/Petitioner/Accused No.3.

2.State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by SHO, Mangalagiri P.S., Guntur District, Rep. by through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ;

-Respondent/Respondent/Complainant ... Respondents

121, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District as Respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition

COMMON ORDER :-

THE HONQURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH LA.No.O1 of 2021 in/and CrL.P.No, 3385 of 2021

LA.No.1 of 2021 in/and Cri.P.No.3386 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:-

LA.No.1 of 2021 in Cri.P.No.3385 of 2021:

This petition is filed to implead Gaddipati Srinivasarao, S/o

Kutumbarao as respondent no.2 in Cri.P.No.3385 of 2021. Crl.P.No.3385 of 2021:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C praying the Court to enlarge the petitioner/accused no.4 on bail in FLR.No.346 of 2021, dated 19.6.2021 registered/lodged on the file of

Mangalagiri (Rural) P.S., Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. LA.No.1 of 2021 in Crb.P.No.3386 of 2021:

This petition is filed to implead Gaddipati Srinivasarao, S/o

Kutumbarao as respondent no.2 in Crl.P.No.3386 of 2021. Crl.P.No.3386 of 2021:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 437 8&8 439 of Cr.P.C praying the Court to enlarge the petitioner/ accused no.3 on bail in FI.R.No.346 of 2021, dated 19.6.2021 registered/lodged on the file of

Mangalagiri (Rural) P.S., Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

As both the L.A's and petitions arise out of same F.LR number

and the allegations leveled against the accused in both the petitions are

one and the same, these two petitions are being disposed of with °

common order.

2. Heard both sides.

3. As per the averments of the petition, the petitioners were arrayed as accused no.4 and accusedno.3 in F.ILR.No,346 of 2021 dated 19.6,2021 on the file of Mangalagiri (Rural) police station for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 471, 420, 506 r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Ags per the complaint,. the complainant namely Mr. Gaddipati Srinivasarao, who was working as office assistant at NRI Academy of Sciences, has submitted a written complaint in the respondent police station alleging that the accused no.1 Nimmagadda Upendranath, no.o Akkineni Mani, along with the petitioner herein have colluded and misappropriated the society funds by diverging them for their personal use and for personal gains, It is alleged in the complaint that the above named accused along with the petitioner created an account under the head of "buildings" and transferred an approximate amount to a fune of Rs.4,30,72,966 between 05.4.2007 to 15.5.2018 in the name of construction but no such constructions were happened in the period 05.4.2017 to 15.5,2018. The head "buildings" was created and misappropriated the amount of Rs.4,30,72,966/-

which was used for the personal use of the other accused along with

_ the petitioner in the name of NRI Medical college,

4, It is further alleged in the complaint that all the accused hatched plan and misappropriated the Management quota funds of MBBS Course by placing the same in MBBS Fee Suspense Account and

diverting the funds of an amount of Rs.3,07,41,448/-. It ig also alleged

in the complaint that all the accused colluded together and fabricated the statement of account regarding payments received by the Covid patients by issuing manual receipts in the name of Society, in the year

2020 and misappropriated the funds to a tune of Rs.73,44,600/-.

3. The allegations made against the petitioners herein are vague and

absurd and the allegations made in the initial complaint are very vague

and are only created to falsely implicate the petitioners In a case

pertaining to civil nature. It is also submitted that previously on the very same premise, a complaint dated 03.3.2021 was lodged before the same respondent by one K.Butchaiah, former member of the NRI Academy of Sciences and the same was registered as F.I.R.No.85 of 2021 dated 03.3.2021 for the offences punishable under section 420, 406, 120B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in which the petitioner herein was arrayed as accused no.4. All the accused in F.I.R.No.85 of

2021 filed different bail applications before this Court and this Court

'directed that no coercive steps to be taken against the accused. In view

of the same, in order to harass the management of the society, the present FIR has been registered. In order to threaten and discourage the members of the society to participate in the EGM scheduled on 24.6.2021, this false complaint was registered and the petitioner was arrested with the sole intention to deny his presence in the EGM as the

petitioner is the auditor of NRIAS and his presence is necessary in the

EGM.

6, It is further submitted that for resolving the financial

discrepancies regarding transactions among two different legal entities,

the complainant herein cannot institute criminal prosecution as

opposed to a civil dispute. It is Rurther submitted that on mere reading of the sections, it is evident that the accused have to deceive with a dishonest intention, criminal conspiracy, breach of trust by the public Servant and in the present case there is no such intention or any deception. The case has been clearly foisted against the petitioners herein after failing to succeed in the civil litigation. The petitioners herein did not commit any such illegal act to attract the section and the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are vague and the allegations made in general and vague. The petitioners, being qualified computer science Engineers with Masters from United States of America, and had a good reputation of working at various Positions in reputed companies in the USA. The petitioners herein through the representative filed writ petitions before this Court in the form of house motion on 24.6.2021 at 6.30am and the same was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedies and the W.P.SR.No.16515 of 2021 filed by the accused no.] and 2 herein in the form of House motion on the same date and time in which this Court directed the respondent police not to arrest. It ig further submitted that the petitioners herein are not involved in any criminal incidents and no ingredient supports that the petitioners to be arrayed in the FIR or to be arrested thereafter, Therefore, the petitioners herein filed the present petition seeking regular bail and the petitioners submits that they are willing to abide by any conditions which this Court may deem fit to

impose,

7. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N.Ashwin Kumar, learned Counsel for accused no.4 in

Cri. P.No.3385 of 2021 and Sri D. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

teal

appearing on behalf of Sri N.Ashwin Kumar, learned Counsel accused no,.3 in Cri.P.No.3386 of 2021, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsei for the

proposed 2"4 respondent.

8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Adinarayana Rao has submitted that the present complaint dated 19.6.2021 is similar to that of a complaint made by Dr.Butchaiah Kondragunta in complaint dated 03.3.2021. To substantiate his contention learned Senior Counsei placed reliance on the complaint dated 03.3.2021 wherein one of the previous member of the Society has made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Mangalagiri (Rural) police station stating that some of the members of the management of the NRI Academy of Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the societyli.e. Dr.Nimmagadda Upendranath, Dr. Mani Akkineni wha are the vice-President and treasurer respectively and one Uppalapadu Srinivasa Rao, CCO along with the support of Vallurupalli Nalini Mohan, CFO of the society are indulged into fraudulent criminal activities and siphoning of huge amounts of Society funds by diverting them to their personal use and personal gains. Similarly the present complaint filed by one Gaddipati Srinivasa Rao, S/o Kutumba Rao working as office assistant in NRI Academy of Sciences stating that the office bearers and employees i.e. Nimmagadda Upendranath, Akkineni Mani, Uppalapau Srinivasa Rao who are the members of the society are misappropriated the society funds by

diverting them to their personal use and for personal gains.

9. Consequent to the complaint made by Dr. Butchaiah Kondragunte on 03.3.2021, the respondent i.e. Station House Officer of Mangalagiri Rural police station has registered F.ILR.No.85 of 2021 on the same day Le. on 03.3.2021 for the offences under section 406, 420,120(B} r/w 34 IPC. As against the registering of F.LR, the petitioners in both the petitions and other accused have filed criminal petitions before this Court and the same were numbered as 2571 of 2021, 2624 of 2021, 2627 of 2021 and 2634 of 2021. In those criminal petitions this Court

has passed the following order on 26.4,2021:

"There shail be an interim direction permitting the investigation in FIR No.85 of 2021 to go on. However, no coercive Steps against the petitioner herein until further orders".

The petitioner shall cooperate unth the investigation and appear before the authorities upon Proper written suniunons being given to the petitioner'.

Subsequent to the above directions of this Court, to circumvent said orders, the present complaint has been lodged with the similar

allegations with that of the complaint dated 03.3.2021.

10. Learned Senior Counsel further brought to the notice of the Court that the complaint made by the present complainant was at the directions of the Secretary of the Society Le. Dr.Mukkamala Apparaa. Hence the present complaint is filed only to circumvent the orders of the Court and the batch of petitions and the present complaint is made by the petitioners with the directions of the other members of the Society. Hence the registration of F\1.R is contrary to the provisions of 'the IPC and the law laid down by the Apex Court on successive FIRs/complaints in Tespect of the same set of facts could not be

maintained,

Li. Further, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that to overcome the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh. Kumar's case the present F.I.R is lodged under section 120(B), 409, 471, 420, 506 IPC. Except section 409 IPC for all other sections the punishment is below seven years. Only to overcome the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amesh Kumar's case, they have

registered this case under section 409 IPC which reads as follows:

409; Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent ~ Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

The ingredients of section 409 IPC will not attract to the present case and the petitioners will not come under the realm of banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent. Neo offence is disclosed or would not attract a particular provision of law, the police would not have authority to undertake an investigation. On the face of it there is no basis in the FIR even remotely implicate the petition in the alleged offence under section 409 IPC. So in view of the same, registering case under section 409 IPC is not applicable to the present circumstances of

the case.

12. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that when the first F.LE is registered on the similar allegations and that to when this Court has directed to go ahead with the investigation in F.L.R.No.85 of 2021, the authorities could not register the second F.L.R as a separate cause. Hence in view of the above grounds and the observation of the latest

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arab Manoranjan Goswami vs.

State of Maharashtra and others! the petitioners may be released by

enlarging on bail.

importance in the ives of citizens or in terms of the duty to render Justice to them, High Courts get burdened when courts of first instance decline to grant anticipatory bail or bail in deserving cases. This continues in the Supreme Court as weil, when High Courts do not grant bail or anticipatory bail in cases falling within the Parameters of the lew: The consequence for those who suffer incarceration are serious, Common citizens without the NEGNS OF resources to move the High Courts or this Court languish as undertrials. Courts must be alive to the Situation as it Prevails on the ground ~ in the jails ariel police stations where human dignity has na Protectar. As Judges, we would do well to remined ourselves that it is threugh the mstrumentality of bail that our criminal justice system's primordigi interest in Preserwing the Presumption. of innocence finds its most (1977) 4 8CC 308 These words of Justice Krishna lyer are not isolated stlog i our Jurisprudence, but have been, consistently followed in judgments of this Court for decades, Some of these judgments are: State of UP. us Amarman; Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 and Sanjay Chandra vs CBE (2012) 1 $cc 40. PART J eloquent expression. The remedy of bai] is the --solemn expression of the humaneness of the justice systemi4l. Tasked as We are unth the primary responsibility of Preserving the liberty of all citizens, we cannot countenance an approach that has the consequence of applying this basic rule in an inverted form, We have given expression io our anguish in a case where a

citizen has approached this court. We have done so in order to reiterate principles which must govern countless other faces whose voices should not go unheard.

13. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, appearing on behalf of Sri N.Ashwin Kumar, learned Counsel for accused no.3 in Crl.P.No,3386 of 2021 has adopted the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Adinarayana Rao and supplemented that the registration of the present/second FIR jis contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in PTAntony vs, State of Kerala and others2?. He further submitted that on investigation, if any further information acquired or any information subsequent to the registration of FR that could be taken up as only statement under section 161 Cr.P.c and they cannot register a fresh case for investigation. To Support his contention he a

' {2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 427 * {2001)6 Supreme Court Cases 181

©.

placed reliance at para no.27 and 34 of the above said judgment which

reads as follows:

A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the exparsive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be siruck by the Court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain. further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narangs' case (supra) tt was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. it would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in. a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report under Section 173{2) has been. forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrP.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No.268/ 97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed. We hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave of the Court in Crime No.353/94 and Crime No.354/94 for making further investigations and filing a further report or reports under Section 173{8) of CrP.C. before the competent Magistrate m the said cases, In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the fudgment of the High Court under challenge insofar as it relates to quashing of Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station against the ASP (R.A.Chandrasekhar}; in all other aspects the impugned judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside.

In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment, the State has already registered F.LR.No.85 {2021 on the complaint made by one of the members of the Society Le. Dr.K.Butchaiah Kondragunta, the authorities are not entitled to register a second complaint. Hence the same is contrary to law. Hence the

petitioners are entitled for enlargement on bail.

14. Further the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the defacto complainant is not entitled to be heard while deciding the bail application of the accused. Only in special circumstances, he can assist the prosecution and in bringing to the notice of the court any relevant

facts that fall for consideration in deciding the bail applications. In.

Support of the said contention he relied on Delta Car Put. Ltd. Vs. Sanju Shah and Others? and further he submitted that there are no specific

overt acts against the petitioners and the petitioners are only employees

of the said Society.

15. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the complaint dated 03.3.2021 by Dr.Butchaiah Kondragunta is totally different to the present complaint dated 19.6.2021 made by Sri Gaddipati Srinivasarao and is nothing to do with the earlier complaint. In the present complaint, the complainant has made allegations about the subsequent events. In addition to the earlier complaint he also brought to the notice of the authorities about the fabrication of statement of accounts regarding payments received from covid patients in implementation of the plan and by giving manual receipts in the name of society. By virtue of that they have misappropriated an amount of Rs.73,44,600/- with the help of the petitioners and also admission of MBBS students in Management quota and misappropriated the Management quota funds for implementation of their plan they showed lesser amounts in the accounts by virtue of that they have siphoned Rs.3,07,41,448/-. Further he contended that they have also moved an application before the appropriate court for police custody. Unless and until the accused were given custody to the police, they could not complete the investigation. Hence the present

applications are premature and requested for dismissal of the same,

16. Learned Senior Counsel Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, appearing on behalf of the proposed respondent i.e. complainant has submitted that

the complaint made by Dr.Butchaiah Kondragunta on 03.3.2021 ig

* 2015(2) ALT (erl.} 216 {A.P}

eee.

totally different. That ig with regard to the dispute between the members of the society. But the present complaint is made by the complainant on 19.6,.2021 which is with regard to the siphoning of the amounts by the accused. To substantiate his contentions he made reliance on remand report in which it was stated that the accused no.3 and 4 have confessed before the authorities that they maintained ledger accounts accordingly as advised. Out of 13,411 ledger accounts they are maintaining unofficial ledger account in the name of building and they maintained unofficial ledger accounts from the year 2009 and up to March 2021. The unofficial ledger has been maintained as per the instructions of the management Le. Dr.Akkineni Mani, Dr.Nalini Mohan Vallurupalli, Dr.Nimmagadda Upendranath and Sri Uppalapadu Srinivasa Rao, He further submitted that the investigation is going on and if the petitioners were enlarged on bail, it will hamper the investigation and hence requested to dismiss the same. Reply to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused no.3, he submitted that the judgment relied on by the

learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the present case. In fact the

two complaints are separate complaints. Hence it cannot be treated as .

second F.I.R.

17. Reply to the contentions, the complainant is not entitled to make his submissions in the bail petition, he relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad reported in 2010 ALD Cri. 257 wherein the High Court has held that though it is the primary duty of the State to conduct prosecution, however, the victim is not totally

barred in appropriate cases and to represent their grievances, In view of

eer tet COLELELEL IEEE DEEITAETISEIABEA DELLE SESSAIIIEUASEAE SECU SEELSEESSSEEE SEES

the same he is entitled to submit his contentions on behalf of the

complainant.

Scope of section 409 IPC js totally baseless and all the accused will

come under the said section aS an agent.

19. On perusal of the entire record no doubt that the complaint dated 03.3.2021 ig against the very same pefsons for fraudulent criminal activities and siphoning of huge amount of society funds by diverting them for their personal use and Personal gain and the same was

registered as F.LR.No.85 of 2021. No doubt on perusal of the

personal gains. It is an admitted fact that aS against the FLELR.No.85 of 2021, this Court has categorically directed the State to proceed with the investigation and however protection is granted not to take any coercive

steps against the petitioners. When the said criminal petitions are

treated as separate F.LR, and the said contentions are contrary to the

ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T.Antony's case wherein

the Apex Court has categorically stated that all subsequent informations will be covered by section 162 and the officer in charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the F.1.R but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the sare transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports. In view of the above the authorities are entitled to investigate and if any additional material is found they are entitled to proceed by making report. Hence the present complaint dated 19.6.2021 cannot be treated as F.I.R and it should be

construed as 161 Cr.P.C statement.

20. Further it is not in dispute that as against the registering the P.LR.No.346 of 2021, accused no.1 and 2 filed writ petition vide W.P.3.R.No.16515 of 2021 on 24,6.2021 before this Court and this

Court directed not to arrest.

21. The main allegations are against the accused 1 and 2 and the petitioners herein are only employees of the society and already there is a protection granted in favour of the accused 1 and 2, Considering the submissions made by all the counsel and without going into the objections raised by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to hearing of complaint, the LA's in both the criminal petitions for impleadment of

ry. Gaddipati Srinivasarao as 9nd respondent is allowe 1

92, On perusal of entire record and case laws relied by both the counsel, this Court is of the opinion that to over reach the orders passed by this Court in batch of criminal petitions, the registration of

second F.L.R.No.346 of 2021 is made which is contrary to the ratio

decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T.Antony's case. In view of the

AES SLACAAIEAEEG EOE S ERS

oa OOOO ASST

above, this court inclined to allow both the criminal petitions by

granting bail to the petitioners.

23. Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are allowed and the petitioner/accused no4 in CrlP.No.3385 of 2021 and petitioner/accused no.3 in Crl.P.No.3386 of 2021 shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District and the petitioners in both the criminal petitions are directed to surrender their passports, if any, before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District on proper acknowledgment. The petitioners shall cooperate

with the investigating agency.

SD/- B.NARASING RAO | ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPYI/ C1)

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

2. he Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Police Station, Guntur District.

3.The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.

4,Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Amaravati (OUT)

5.One CC to Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

§.One CC to Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate(OPUC}

7.One spare copy.

TKK

t '