Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kokkiligadda Vanija vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 August, 2022

  

 
 

iy
ta
shore
tet
os
e raed
"on J oa)
So
vee adhere
apne bet
. deb eek ae
Oe we a 6
"ae ke rh on ,
<< yen wn Bed y .
om none, reert ot
"a, ie "f fe
; in at co oe HS,
wth fh @ eo
Py me KS o "ese '4 oh.
oh, othe, i. i we eee "
tad iy tg £5 ford
7 cnngee, re 4 2
sf Ae " . + tt ee
hgh peor a tnd * : " vt i pen
ee " fond * : Chee Se a ot
fs co feos * ' i. a oa
wy oor eat bee "LS epee
ee. "Se . fuk t fee a, '
i 7 lok bed Sion Ea] Ong
te, | we OB Lo of
£3 7" SS oad to teed id
ber * ts v esd Mew "Nowe,
wef Lt beve 4348 A "5 a re ai "fF
ae val had te 464 a igeee
re {hy en aay ny ty fo wh
: 'od Led deve es "a Booch oe bee 3 .
be vad OLY tht . s foes ry sao seegt wy
£%, "8, 433 feet, ro a age uy rd
Lata . *. a weed fobs te Goer Linn,
Ze ba os og
ae an ve wet wn iw the
a td, ae a Mere + 4 yer
. he ere a Sis th.
"4, fh, ae? om yee a
my * a ty i Ga
week 4 8 sa
ergee > he ie,
bee rx ts oe, & x

£
:
:
3

 

MURT OF

 
 
 
 
 

band poe of rr
BG ee Gy a
bee with, o La
"nd an WS tt
an weee "3 as
bag ven typ oy
thet ee oat ogre seood re
*e8 $53 "A xs beer
~~ syn, ae ene 0 dere
or wey / been
band wee voes Bo n ie m4
uf po 3 4 tp On ob
ey a. a, oy Ly ta 4
bat ead iy geo steed ex! vee
seleod a? coed bits eee
rape 'oe wo ff tae, yee eer
an yee we oon ae 4
beeee 2 bot rE ween 4%
bgt ; nS fey ne ; fon
Stok, as) , "ae bee et
: "n ve L oe Les
hen "4 ing VA ; Ay
sete. . eg 07%, Seow deed tf
4 1 ef Ms ; 'ece ;
Gennes aa fh sys $03. fore t $3
* gee HES aed whet 23 dee, aK
hen Ley Spee " wae YEE
wags $4 ; aft oo
fy tated ed Ww Ie, ft
4 Ww oie hi re 24 ' ban
wae, Lb cee 4g, er eo bee.
ed TE #% mg tt bb
wey OT a ia we shee ying gt
Be oe ° oe ches ke ry
ie 8 bed re "s te
ye £5 bene ne «
he es ee apes ri
OL Oh. 4 eabee LA

 

 

a

 
 

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6043 OF 2022
ORDER:-

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking
anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/A14 in Cr.No.14 of 2021 of CID
Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri,
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420,
467, 468 r/w 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

"IPC').

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Jinkala Anji
Reddy and 8 others have obtained loan from State Bank of India,
Upalapadu Branch, Guntur District to a tune of Rs.1,61,93,027/-
with the help of valuers and in collusion with Bank Manager of SBI,
Uppalapadu Branch. The allegation against the petitioner is that
she sanctioned loans without proper verification and without
obtaining proper layout of the land. Initially petitioner was not
arrayed as accused, but subsequently she was added as Al14
during investigation vide proceedings C.No.819/C12/CID-AP/2020-

22, dated 01.06.2022.

3. Heard Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has

been stated in the grounds, contended that in the earlier bail

t

--

application filed by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4827 of 2022 certain important facts were not placed before this Court and the same was dismissed. As such, the present bail application is filed as it is maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention about the maintainability of the second bail application relied Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in "LT.COL.PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA". He further contended that the Assistant to valuer i.e., A1i2 got pre- arrest bail before this Court in Crl.P.No.4486 of 2021 and the same was placed on record and further contended that subsequent to the dismissal of bail application of the petitioner before this Court, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court vide Cril.M.P.No.1183 of 2022 and the same was dismissed on the ground that "the High Court as well as the Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/A14 and once the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction, especially, when there were no change of circumstances. As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed". Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that basing on the valuation certificate only the loans will be processed. The valuer also got pre-arrest bail. He further contended that in the event of her arrest, she will be put to hardship and her reputation in the family and in the society will be affected. Hence, prays this

Court to consider this application.

1 (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 458 a

Sy "es

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, as such, this Court also dismissed the earlier bail application of the petitioner. He further submits that, the petitioner was already suspended from her job and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, she may hamper the process of investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.

6. In reply, learned counsel for|the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now working as a Branch Manager in Tirupati.

7. A perusal of the record clearly shows that the petitioner's application was dismissed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4827 of 2022. A perusal of the said order does not show anything about the granting of bail to accused No.12 and other accused who got pre-arrest bail. As such, there is some force in contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the judgment relied by him is applicable to the facts of the case.

8. In "LT.COL.PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA" relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the apex Court held as follows:

"Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds

on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such

2 (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 458 i _

cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken

in the earlier applications".

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and material available on record and submissions made by both the learned counsel and as other accused were also granted bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ Al4, however the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing the following conditions.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Cr.No.14 of 2021 of CID Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, on the petitioner executing a self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer,

CID Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, twice in a month i.e. on every Second Sunday and fourth Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till filing of

charge sheet.

(iii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper

with the prosecution evidence. 'She shall make herself available to

the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate

proper investigation in this case.

(iii) ~The petitioner shall 'not directly or indirectly contact any witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the

investigation.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation.

Consequently, miscellaneous) applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

/ TRUE COPY// ; 'seer MOHD, RAF

4.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2.The Vi Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

3.The Station House Officer, CID Police Station, A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

4.Two CCs to Smt Y.L. Siva Kalpana Reddy, SC-cum-Special Public Prosecutor For CID, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati(OUT)

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

6.One spare copy.

for SECTION OFFicER

TKK

NEGN COURT