Disposed

Kondamanchali Manchali Satyanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2021CRLP/1559/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Instead of granting bail, the petitioner was directed to cooperate with police investigation following the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to follow procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Kondamanchali Manchali Satyanarayana Vs the… — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A1 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 891 of 2020 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur Urban registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶4

The case of prosecution is that a report was lodged alleging that A1 went to the house of the complainant in the year 2017 along with A2 by saying that he knows Minister for railways and he took an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- from the complainant on different occasions on the ground that he would provide employment to the complainant’s elder brother in railways department. He also handed over appointment letter to the complainant by saying that they would get job in two months. Subsequently on enquire it came to light that the appointment letter was a fake one and the accused cheated them. Basing on the said report, the present crime is registered.

¶5

Heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and only as a counter blast to the suit filed the petitioner, the complainant lodged the report falsely implicating the petitioner herein.

¶6

¶7

However, without going into the merits of the case as the punishment for the alleged offence is up to seven years, the Police are directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C, and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in

¶8

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar¹ .

¶9

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

Date :17.03.2021 IKN

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶15

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1559 of 2021

¶16

17.03.2021

¶17

IKN

Kondamanchali Manchali Satyanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondamanchali Manchali Satyanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalintha Bhanu Prakash Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalintha Bhanu Praksah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalintha Bhanu Praksah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Prathikantam Gunavardhan Raju Vs Prathikantham Uma Venkata Satyarenuka

Velkumar Arunachalam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Janam Nagaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh