Dismissed

Sri Pathivada Appala Naidu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2024CRLP/8840/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second anticipatory bail petition by accused in a chit-fund fraud case involving Rs.16 lakh investment claims. Court held no substantial change in facts justified reconsideration after earlier dismissal, cited Supreme Court rulings on repeated bail applications, and dismissed the petition without granting bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Pathivada Appala Naidu Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8840 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Pathivada Appala Naidu, S/o Suri Appadu, Aged about 46 years, cooli, R/o Dr No. 22-15/1-89/26C, Bhanu Nagar, Cement Road, Satyanarayanapuram Vijayawada(urban), Satyanarayanapuram Krishna, Andhra Pradesh-520011.

¶9

Smt Pathivada Lakshmi, W/o Appala Naidu, Aged about 43 years, cooli, R/o Dr No. 22-15/1-89/26C, Bhanu Nagar, Cement Road, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada(urban), Satyanarayanapuram, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh-520011.

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused 1 & 2

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,Hig^hCourt of AP.at Amaravati,Through the Station House Officer,Gunadala Police Station,NTR District

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Sri Majji Srinu, S/o Appaianaidu,Aged about 33 years,Mason,R/^oDoor No.22-001582/80,Bhanu nagar,Vijayawada

¶15

...Respondent/ De-facto- COMPLAINANTS

¶16

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S, R/w Under Section 438 of Cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the SHO.Gunadala Police Station,NTR District to release the Petitioners Accused No.1 and 2 on bail inthe event of their arrest in Cr.No.169/2023 dated 27-07-2023 under sections 406,420,506 of IPC and S/5 of AP Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 in the interest of Justice

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the^Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkat Chalasani, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8840 of 2024

¶23

ORDER:-

¶24

This is the second bail application, under Section⁴⁸² of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short,^{“BNSS”)read} with Section 438 of Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.169 of 2023 of Gunadala Police Station, NTR District.

¶25

A case has been registered against the petitioners^andothers for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420^and506of I.P.C.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant by name M.Srinu, who is a resident of Banu Nagar, Vijayawada,^made a complaint stating that the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with others misrepresented that they were conducting Chitti Business and lured them to invest more money thus by they will double the money they invested. On believing such false statements, the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/-^and the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 equivocated they were going to invest the money in land and when they sell the^same, their money will get doubled and also made false promises^thattheywill return the money whenever they asked to do so. After^{collectingthe} money, the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 absconded^fromtheir house, and when the complainant questioned the said^action,they threatened him to kill if he ever raised his voice. Aggrieved by the same the complainant filed a complaint to the Station House Officer, Gunadala Police Station, NTR District.

¶27

¶28

¶29

Heard. Perused the record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, is inapplicable to the facts of the case. He points out that the de facto complainant lacks the financial capacity to make any such claims, as he is a mason who migrated to Vijayawada from Vizianagaram for his livelihood. Furthermore, the petitioner/A.1 never solicited deposits from any individual. Learned counsel also argues that petitioner/A.2 has no involvement in the alleged crime, as she is the wife of A.1. Additionally, it is submitted that petitioner/A.1 is suffering from a heart condition and is undergoing treatment at Dr Pinnamaneni Siddhartha General and Super Speciality Hospital, China Avutapalli. His condition poses a risk of complications without timely treatment and proper medication,^which could lead to irreversible health consequences. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes granting bail because the previous bail petition was dismissed against the petitioners/1 and 2 vide order dated 08.05.2024 in Crl.P.No.2781 of 2024.

¶31

As evidenced by the record, the Petitioner had previously^filed an anticipatory bail application under Crl.P.No.2781 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court after a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both parties. Upon reviewing the order dated 08.05.2024 in Crl.P.No.2781 of 2024, this Court rejected the Petitioners’ assertion that Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 was not applicable to the facts of the case.

¶32

¶33

The passage of eight months and the Petitioners' claims of ill health cannot serve as grounds for granting anticipatory^bail.The Petitioners' counsel requests this Court to direct the police to issue a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. However, each^casemust be evaluated on its own merits, and the fact that others were granted bail does not automatically entitle the Petitioners to anticipatory bail. All arguments raised by the Petitioners were thoroughly examined in the previous bail application, which was ultimately dismissed by this Court. Therefore, the same contentions and findings do not require reiteration. 9. As already noted, this is the second anticipatory bail application. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V. Buddhikota Subha Rao^, wherein it is held that:

¶34

“7. XXX In the present case, the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected^onmerits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged^tohavebeen committed.

¶35

XXX

¶36

Once that application ivas rejected, there lA/as no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And, when ive speak of change, we mean a^substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.”

¶37

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

¶38

“20. Xxx Therefore, even though there is room for filing^a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become^obsolete.

¶39

' 1989 Supp(2) see 605

¶40

^ (2005) 2 see 42

¶41

¶42

This is the iimited area in which an accused who has been denied baii eariier, can move a subsequent appiication."

¶43

By following the rulings above, it is clear that unless there ISi: a significant alteration in the factual circumstances or legal principles necessitating a reconsideration of the previous stance, or if the earlier determination has become obsolete, the second anticipatory bail application cannot be considered. In the absence of a change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the second anticipatory bail application of the Petitioners.

¶44

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application.

¶45