Telangana High Court
Tummala Siva Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.857 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused
Nos. 8 and 9 under Sections 437 and 439(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking regular bail to the
petitioners/Accused in Crime No.221 of 2022 of P.S. EOW Team, CCS
DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 120-B, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC') and Section 5 of The Telangana Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'TSPDFE Act').
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 18.10.2022
at 7:45 P.M., the de-facto complainant, a senior citizen aged about 65 years
lodged a complaint stating that one Kshitij Kumar (accused No.7), who
was a student of her husband used to interact with them, approached them
stating that he was working for a investment company and offered to take
care of their finances. Accordingly, they made investments through Kshitij
Kumar, who gained their confidence. In the month of May/June, 2020,
Kshitij Kumar strongly recommended to make investments in three entities
under the name and style of M/s. Grow Magnet Ltd., M/s. Validus Projects
and M/s. Pro Design Creative Advertising representing that they were
Dr.GRR,J
offering to give good results and also represented that their investments
would be safe and secure and stated that they were offering interest around
12% per annum payable every month. Believing him, the complainant and
her husband invested a total amount of Rs.1,31,74,000/-. After that they
received monthly interest till December, 2021. Thereafter the said
company stopped payment of interest. They asked Kshitij Kumar about
the payment of interest, but he was postponing the same and when they
asked to refund their investment, he evaded.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the CCS Police of Detective
Department registered a case in Crime No.221 of 2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, read with Section 34 of IPC.
During the course of investigation, the offence under Section 5 of the
TSPDFE Act was also added. On 09.01.2024, the petitioners-accused
Nos.8 and 9 were arrested on PT warrant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
investments were made voluntarily by the complainant and her husband, as
such, Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act would not attract. Admittedly, the
petitioners were not the persons who deceived them. The petitioners were
Dr.GRR,J
also victims since they also invested money being pooled in the
transaction, cheques were issued to the victims by the petitioners herein
and further contended that the petitioners were taken on PT warrant in
cases one after the other and relied upon the judgment of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Tupakula Appa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1
wherein it was held that:
"when several cases were registered
against the same persons pertaining to
the same police station, the police could
have shown their arrest in other cases
also simultaneously, but not showing the
same warrant a conclusion that they
were deemed to be in custody in respect
of the other crimes also although formal
arrest was not shown in the other cases."
and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
6. On a perusal of the above judgment, it would disclose that a
caution was also made by the Court stating that:
"...However, it is needless to say
whether the bail can be granted or not,
depends upon the facts of each case and
would be left to the discretion of the
Court to exercise the same on merits in
each case."
7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed grant of
bail to the petitioners.
2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 67 (AP)
Dr.GRR,J
8. Perused the record.
9. The record would disclose that the petitioner No.1-accused
No.8 was the proprietor of M/s. Grow Magnet India Ltd. and petitioner
No.2-accused No.9 was one of the proprietors of M/s. Validus Projects and
they induced the complainant and other victims who were senior citizens
and collected a huge amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/- promising to give good
returns and failed to return the same and cheated them by not paying
interest or refunding the principal amount. As such, it is considered not a
fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners.
10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J
Date : 05.02.2024
ss
