This criminal petition sought anticipatory bail for offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and benami transactions. The court held it was not a fit case for bail due to gravity but directed adherence to Section 41-A Cr.P.C and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.
Bail denied; direction to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5304 OF 2019
ORDER:
1. In this petition, filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, the Petitioner/A-10 seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.94 of 2017 of Santhakaviti Police Station, Srikakulam district, which was registered against him and others for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B R/w.34 of IPC and Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2015 and Sections 5, 6, 9 and 53 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Investigation is reported to be pending.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences and pending investigation, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, considering the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioner/ A-10 are under Sections 420, 109 and 120-B R/w.34 of IPC and Sections 5, 6, 9 and 53 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, which are amenable to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and also the guidelines rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar1 during the course of investigation against the petitioner/A-10.
1 2014 (3) ACR 2670 (SC)
UDPR,J Crl.P.No.5304 of 2019
2
Further, the petitioner/A-10 is directed to co-operate with the
Investigating Agency for smooth completion of investigation.
4. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
5. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date:16.09.2019 DSH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail given the gravity of offences and pending investigation.
Whether the investigating officer should follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C and Arnesh Kumar guidelines regarding arrest in benami and cheque-related offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharReferred¶5
2014 (3) ACR 2670 (SC)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Unidentified Petitioner/A-10
U Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
