Rakesh Ganesh Naik vs The State Of Ap,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5668 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.6420 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), is filed by the

petitioner/Accused, seeking to grant pre-arrest bail in Crime No.29

of 2021 of Crime Investigation Department (CID), Economic

Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 418, 420,

465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 read with 120 (B) IPC and Section 13

(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pursuant to

G.O.Ms.No.47 (HE) (EC.A2) Department dated 13.12.2014, Andhra

Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation („APSSDC‟, in short)

was incorporated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said

APSSDC entered into Memorandum of Association with SIEMENS

Industry Software (India) Private Limited for imparting Hi-end

technology to the trainers and accordingly, Government of Andhra

Pradesh agreed to establish SIEMENS centers of Excellence,

Technical Skill Development Institutions and Skill Development

Centers. During tax investigation by the Additional Director

General, GST, Intelligence, Pune, in respect of the claims of Central

Value Added Tax credited by M/s. Design Tech Systems Private

Limited and M/s. Skillar Enterprises India Private Limited, which

are also under the control of SIEMENS, led to unearthing huge

financial scam involving crores of rupees by SIEMENS. It is alleged

that the following companies are shell/defunct companies:

1. M/s. Allied Computers International (Asia) Limited, Mumbai (in short M/s. ACI).

2. M/s. Patrick Info Services Private Limited, M/s. I.T.Smith solutions Private Limited.

3. M/s. Inweb Info Services Private Limited all based at New Delhi.

4. M/s. Arihanth Traders, New Delhi.

5. M/s. G.A.Sales Private Limited, New Delhi.

The said companies issued invoices without providing any services.

According to the written complaint dated 07.09.2021 given by the

Chairman, APSSDC, the above crime was registered.

3. Heard Sri Manish Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner who is having vakalat along with the advocate on record

and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended

that the petitioner was not shown as accused and he was only

issued notice under section 160 Cr.P.C., for investigation purpose

and nothing beyond that and further submitted that in the very

same crime, another witness was issued notice under section 160

Cr.P.C., and the said person approached this court by filing

Crl.P.No.1905 of 2022 and the same was dismissed on the ground

that the petitioner is not an accused in the above crime and on

imaginary apprehension, the petitioner approached this Court and

prayed this court to pass the same orders.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contended

that the petitioner herein is Additional Director of the M/s. Allied

Computers International (Asia) Limited. Though notice under

section 160 Cr.P.C., has been issued, the respondents are acting

detrimental to the procedure and they are trying to record false

confession through illegal torture and the petitioner is getting

threatening calls from the investigating officer and through his

subordinate officers and if the petitioner does not mend to their

terms, they would implicate the petitioner as accused in the

present crime and prayed this court to grant anticipatory bail

stating that the petitioner will definitely cooperate with the

investigation and he will abide the conditions imposed by this

court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment

of the Ho‟ble Apex Court reported in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc.,

Vs. The State of Punjab1 and draw the attention of this court to

para 35 of the said judgment and more particularly contended that

the imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can

be shown to exist even if an F.I.R., is not yet filed. By relying on

the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the investigating officer is threatening the petitioner in the

present crime and would arrest the petitioner.

7. A perusal of the decision relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, at para 35, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:

"xxx Thirdly, the filing of a First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under S. 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an F.I.R. is not yet filed."

8. The order relied on by the learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor in Crl.P.No.1905 of 2022 is not applicable to the facts of

the present case.

AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1632

9. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor further

contended that though notice was served to the petitioner, he was

not appear for investigation purpose, as such petitioner does not

deserve pre-arrest bail. It is further contended that in the event,

this Court inclined to consider the bail, the direction should be

given to the petitioner to appear before the CID officer, atleast once

in a month, till charge sheet is filed.

10. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the officers from Amaravati were visited to Mumbai and

recorded the statement of the petitioner and they are trying to

record false confession through illegal torture.

11. Though F.I.R., is not registered against the petitioner, the

imminence arrest of the petitioner is prima facie found in the

present case. In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to

grant pre-arrest bail by duly taking into consideration the decision

relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner stated supra and

taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, with the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail in case of his arrest in Crime No.29 of 2021 of Crime Investigation Department (CID), Economic Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri on his executing self bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Crime Investigation Department (CID), Economic Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the CID Police Station, Amaravati once in a month i.e. on every 4th Sunday between 12.00 noon and 04.00 P.M. till filing of the charge sheet; and

(iii) The Petitioner shall cooperate with investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer, as and when his presence is required. Petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the

above conditions and in case of infraction of the same, the

prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application for

cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

29th August, 2022 AG

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

ALLOWED

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6420 OF 2022

Date: 29.08.2022

AG