Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Police Station vs Veera Venkata Surya Prudhviraj on 8 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6285 of 2023
ORAL ORDER:
Accused No.1 in Crime No.216 of 2023 on the file of Prakash Nagar
Police Station, filed the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking
pre-arrest bail in connection with the said crime.
2. The above crime has been registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 420 and 386 read with Section 34 I.P.C., on the basis of the
report lodged by one V. Veera Venkata Surya Prudhviraj.
3. The contents of the report lodged by the defacto complainant, in brief,
are thus: The defacto complainant is a native of Rajulapalem, P. Gannavaram
Mandal and he has been residing at Rajamahendravaram for the purpose of
education of his children. He got acquaintance with accused No.1 since last
one year, through his friend by name Kanumuri Subbaraju. Accused No.1 is a
resident of Rajamahendravaram and he hails from Pedavegi Mandal of West
Godavari District. Accused No.1 told the defacto complainant that one Raja,
who is a Corporator in Eluru, is his relative and that the said Raja has
Rs.2,000/- notes with him (which were withdrawn from circulation with the
declaration of demonetization) and if those currency notes are exchanged
with Rs.500/- notes, he will get commission of 10%. Accused No.1 introduced
the said person to the defacto complainant in Athidhi Hotel at Eluru and
informed the defacto complainant that the said person, who is a Corporator,
KSR,J
2 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023
runs an educational institution and is also having partnership in Athidhi Hotel.
As the defacto complainant was not having enough money, he informed
some of his friends and relatives about the above offer and with a hope that
they would get 10% commission, they agreed to give money. Accordingly,
the following amounts were arranged by the respective persons - 1)
Rs.10,00,000/- by the defacto complainant, 2) Rs.6,50,000/- by Vuyyuri
Suryanarayana Raju, 3) Rs.10,00,000/- by Paramkusam Srinivas, 4)
Rs.12,00,000/- by Kusampudi Radhakrishnam Raju and 5) Rs.10,00,000/- by
Vuyyuri Satyanarayana Raju. On 06.07.2023 at about 6.00 p.m., the defacto
complainant and the aforesaid persons handed over the total amount of
Rs.48,50,000/- to accused No.1 at the parking place opposite to fruit market
besides Alankar Sweets near Eluru Jute Mill Flyover, and when asked him to
give their 10% commission along with Rs.2,000/- notes, accused No.1 told
them that he would give the money on the next day morning, to which the
defacto complainant and the aforesaid four persons did not agree and took
back the money from accused No.1. Thereupon, accused No.1 and the
persons accompanying him forcibly snatched away the amount of
Rs.48,50,000/- from the defacto complainant and threatened to kill him and
others and went away in Swift white colour car bearing registration No.AP 39
EL 0969. Thereafter, accused No.1 switched off his mobile phone.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the report
lodged by the defacto complainant, the incident took place at Eluru and, as
KSR,J
3 Crl.P.No.6285 of 2023
such, the police of Prakash Nagar Police Station have no jurisdiction to
investigate into the crime. He further contends that as per Section 181
Cr.P.C., the place of trial of the present offence would be Eluru as the alleged
incident took place at Eluru. He further contends that the alleged incident
took place on 06.07.2023, whereas the report has been lodged on
10.07.2023
, which throws any amount of doubt on the veracity of the case of
the prosecution. He further contends that no legal cause of action could arise
out of an illegal act and the alleged agreement between the defacto
complainant and accused No.1 for exchange of Rs.2,000/- notes with
Rs.500/- notes on 10% commission being illegal and unauthorized,
registration of crime on the report of the defacto complainant is improper. In
support of this contention, learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of
the High Court of Madras in J. Revathi v. S. Murugesan reported in
(2012) 5 LW 229. He further contends that arresting the petitioner as a
routine course of action in a case of this nature, which arises out of an illegal
transaction, would amount to curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner,
besides causing incalculable harm to his reputation and self-esteem, and in
order to protect the right to personal liberty, pre-arrest bail may be granted
to the petitioner. In support of this contention, he relies on a judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676. Learned counsel also places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of
Delhi) reported in (2013) 15 SCC 570, to contend that as a presumably
KSR,J
innocent person, the petitioner is entitled to the right to liberty. Drawing
attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 694, which refers to the factors and parameters that can be
taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail, learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that this is not a case where arresting the accused
is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits
that seven witnesses have already been examined in the present crime and
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Learned counsel
also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, and prays that, considering all the
circumstances, the petitioner may be granted pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
would oppose the application, contending that the defacto complainant
explained the delay in lodging the report, by stating that after the incident,
with a hope that the petitioner will repay the money, he waited for a
reasonable time and as there was no response from the petitioner, he gave
the report on 10.07.2023. He further contends that though the alleged
incident of extortion took place at Eluru, initially, the discussion and
agreement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on the
alleged exchange of currency, which finally resulted in the alleged offence of
KSR,J
cheating, took place at Rajamahendravaram and, therefore, police of both
Eluru and Rajamahendravaram, have got jurisdiction to investigate into the
crime. He further contends that even if custodial interrogation is not required
or necessitated, that itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and
in support of this contention, relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in X v. Arun Kumar C.K. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870. He
further submits that the petitioner was also involved in two other crimes, viz.,
Crime No.263 of 2020 of Eluru III Town Police Station and Crime No.146 of
2020 of Eluru Rural Police Station. He further contends that the investigation
is in progress and in view of the nature of the offences, the petitioner may
not be granted pre-arrest bail, and thus, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the material available on record.
7. The allegations made against the petitioner are that he cheated the
defacto complainant and dishonestly induced him to deliver an amount of
Rs.48,50,000/- to him on the pretext of exchange of old currency of
Rs.2,000/- notes with Rs.500/- notes on commission basis, and that when the
defacto complainant and others, who arranged money, went to handover the
said amount of Rs.48,50,000/- to the petitioner and receive the commission
and old currency, the petitioner told that they would be paid on the next day
morning, and when the defacto complainant and others refused to handover
the amount of Rs.48,50,000/-, the petitioner and others accompanying him
KSR,J
forcibly snatched away the said amount from the defacto complainant by
putting him and others in fear of death and dire consequences. Though the
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged agreement
between the petitioner and the defacto complainant being illegal, no legal
cause of action could arise out of the said illegal act, it is to be noted that
the allegations of forcibly snatching away money from the defacto
complainant by putting him in fear of death, would prima facie attract the
offence under Section 386 I.P.C. and whether the said amount was proposed
to be offered in pursuance of an illegal contract is irrelevant for constituting
the ingredients of Section 386 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the
alleged agreement and the discussions about exchange of Rs.2,000/- notes
with Rs.500/- notes took place at Rajamahendravaram, and thus, the offence
of cheating and dishonestly inducing the defacto complainant took place at
Rajamahendravaram also. In a series of acts culminating in an offence, each
step is preparation for the next and in the instant case, the alleged meetings
and discussions at Rajamahendravaram is one of the steps towards
commission of the alleged offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing the
defacto complainant. Even otherwise, if the crime is not to be investigated by
a particular police station on account of lack of jurisdiction, it would always
remain open for the police who registered the crime to transfer the same to
the concerned police, and sitting over the issue of jurisdiction of the police or
the place of trial in terms of Section 181 Cr.P.C., while considering the plea of
anticipatory bail, is unwarranted. In view of the gravity of the offences
KSR,J
alleged and having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled, attributing
specific role to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences, and
also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was earlier involved in two
other offences, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.
_____________________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
Dt: 08.09.2023
IBL
KSR,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6285 of 2023
Dt: 08.09.2023
IBL
