Allowed

Y S Ramya v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Aug 2023CRLP/5363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to Y. S. Ramya, Accused No. 5, in a case involving fraudulent tax refunds. The bench observed that no specific role was attributed to her in the FIR. Bail was granted subject to conditions including hospitalization and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; directed to surrender within 10 days; personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for like sum.

Y S Ramya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

..of Y

¶2

lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT TUESDAY, THE ll^/ENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST ' ll^/O THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE +`` ,'\

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY 'JI^~=----J'<Jf

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5363 OF 2O23

¶6

Betwee n :

¶7

y. S. Ramya, W/o. Y R Srinath, Aged 41 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Subash Road, Madanapalle Town, Annamayya District.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.5

¶9

AND

¶10

The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh At Amaravati.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Petition Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, is filed praying tflat in the cl'rcumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds filed in support of the crl'minal petl'tI'On, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner/accused No.5 in the event of her arrest in connection with cr. No. 329/2022 of Madanapalle ll Town Police Station, Annamayya District

¶13

The Petition Coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petl'tion and the Memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRI D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate for the petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the court made the following

¶14

¶15

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE KISURESH REDDY

¶17

CRIMINALPETITION No. 5363 OF 2023

¶18

a RD_E_R!

¶19

The present criminal petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is

¶20

filed by the petitioner-accused No. 5 seeking her release On bail in the event of arrest in crime No. 329 of 2022 of Madanapalle II Town Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 166, 170, 119, 467,

¶21

468, 471, 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel

¶23

~appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 5, and learned Special

¶24

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶25

Case of the prosecution iS that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were working as Sub Treasury Officers at Madanapalle, ThamballapaIIe

¶26

and p-ller respectively at the t-lme of commission of offences. They

¶27

used the services of one M/s. YSR & Co., a tax consultaney firm,

¶28

and filed Form-24 G with incorrect data by colluding with accused

¶29

No. 4 and the petitioner-accused No. 5, who are the partners Of

¶30

the said firm, and accused No. 6, a Senior Accountant in S.T.O.,

¶31

¶32

Punganur, for wrongful gain through claim of fraudulent income tax refunds by using AIN/PANITAN digital signatures to claim bogus refunds and caused loss to the exchequer of Government of India which is estI'mated at Rsl3,47,00,000/-.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No, 5 contends that the petitioner-accused No. 5 is wife of accused No, 4 who is running the tax consultancy under the name and style of M/s. YSR

¶34

& Co.; that®the petitioner-accused No. 5 did not even complete her

¶35

loth class and she is a housewife and that the petitioner-accused

¶36

No. 5 came to be implicated in the present crime only on the

¶37

~ ground that she is wife of accused No. 4 and therefore requests

¶38

this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused No. 5.

¶39

Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other

¶40

hand, opposed the criminal petition.

¶41

As seen from the allegations in the F.I.R., the main allegations are made against accused Nos. 1 to 3 who were working as Sub Treasury Officers. Accused Nos. 1 'to 3, by taking assistance from accused No. 6, have filed Form-24 G with incorrect

¶42

data by colluding with accused No. 4 who is a tax consultant. so

far as the petitioner-accused No. 5 is concerned, except Stating

¶47

that accused Nos. 4 and 5 are running the Said tax COnSultanCy under the-name and style of M/s. YSR & Co., no specific role has been attributed to the pet®ltioner-accused No. 5, In that view of the matter, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused No. 5 with certain conditions.

¶48

The petitioner-accused No. 5 is, therefore, d'lrected tO surrender before the stat'lon House Officer, Madanapalle II Town police station, Annamayya District, within a per-lOd Of ten days from today. on such surrender, the petitioner-accused No. 5 is __ ordered to be ,enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond

¶49

for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for the like Sum each tO the - satisfaction of the slat-Ion House Officer, MadanapaIIe II Town police station. After release, the petitioner-accused No. 5 shall

¶50

cooperate with the investigating ageney and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶51

The criminal petition 'ls allowed.

Sd/-B. CHITTI JOSEPH

\To,

/ITRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER For

The ll Additional District &.,Sessions Judge, Madanapa'le, Annamayya District

¶57

2, The Station House Officer,''Ma`danapalle ll Town Police Station, Annamayya District

¶58

One CC to SRl, D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶60

Onesparecopy

PSR

HIGH COURT

KSR,J

DATED:22/08/2023

ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER

¶68

CRLP.No.5363 of 2023

¶69

ALLOWED

¶70

n..lt=-:...<.-
.+ i:-<br>:-i_I I;,€g:f.I,~?~--=§--fi l - . -;=¥--.
Liis;fi:=ft*,£iS
#Fd§gr CEL:
I+
:.:::,-:,':i •\ \EL\"<br>•, . -:--:i=i_ii € .... .,--+ _i -t -, -f:

Y S Ramya v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y S Ramya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thammiraju Sairam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Datta Nadh Prasad Pawar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Suresh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Peeta Raman Vs the State through the Station House Officer

M.N. Abdul Jaleel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Tasin Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh