M Ramesh Vs the State of Ap

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.617 of 2024 of Ongole Taluq Police Station, Prakasam.

¶22

A case has been registered against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2), 316, 326, 62 read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNS’).

¶23

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, accused No.1, Excise Constable, is the Verification Officer of Elite Mall No.08989 in Guntur Road, opposite to Mangamma College and Elite Mall No.08985 at Mangamur road, Ongole; that accused No.1, connived with accused Nos.2 to 9, who were working as Mall Supervisor and Salesmen of Elite Mall No.08985, were alleged to have misappropriated the sale proceeds to a tune of Rs.1,53,10,600/- of 13,331 bottles out of total stock of 13,892 and also alleged to have misappropriated the sale proceeds to a tune of Rs.81,23,170/- of 8,984 bottles. On inspection, the alleged misappropriation came into light, basing on which a case in Crime

¶24

3

¶25

No.617 of 2024 of Ongole Taluq Police Station was registered for the aforesaid offences and investigated into.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

¶27

the petitioner is having transactions with accused No.1, but the police, on the pretext of transaction made by the petitioner, earlier with accused No.1 are trying to apprehend, though, the petitioner is no way connected to the subject crime.

¶28

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State would contend that accused were alleged to have misappropriated huge sum by conspiring together and caused loss to the Government exchequer and that, the investigation is under progress and the role of petitioner is yet to be investigated.

¶29

Heard. Perused the record.

¶30

A perusal of entire material on record prima facie goes

¶31

to show that accused No.1, being an Excise Constable, was appointed as Verification Officer to the Elite Mall Nos.08989 and 08985 and during their procedural inspection, it was found that a sum of Rs.2,34,33,770/- was misappropriated by not remitting the sale proceeds of unscanned wine bottles sold. The petitioner did not aver in his petition as to why he is apprehending arrest from

¶32

4

¶33

the police officials in the subject crime, when he concedes that he was having transactions with accused No.1. Prima facie it appears that some role was played by the petitioner in misappropriation of the aforesaid sum with the active connivance of other accused. The investigation is at nascent stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage.

¶34

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶35

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶36

pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶37

______________________ _ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶38

10^th February, 2025. DNB

M Ramesh v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ramesh v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Domathoti Swarupa Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Joga Usha Lakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gudibanda Murali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Paramata Mani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kothapalli Victor Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thallapareddy Narsimha Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh