Allowed

Satyanarayan Thonukunuri (Wrongly mentioned in impugned order as T. Satyanarayan Thonukunuri) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2023MCRCA/49/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant faced arrest under Section 420 IPC for depositing an erroneous bank guarantee in a government contract project. The court noted his readiness to rectify the mistake.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in respect of Crime No. 167/2022 allowing arrest in connection with Section 420 IPC. Applicant released on executing personal bond.

Satyanarayan Thonukunuri (Wrongly mentioned in… — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 49 of 2023

¶5

Satyanarayan Thonukunuri (Wrongly mentioned in impugned order as T. Satyanarayan Thonukunuri), S/o Late Narayana (wrongly mentioned in impugned order as Narayana Prasad), Aged About 56 Years, SLC Education Society, Hyderabad, R/o Plot No. 203, Kalyani Classes, Shrinivas Nagar Colony, East Hyderabad, District Hyderabad, Telangana

¶6

--- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station - Rakhi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For State/ Respondent : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate.

¶7

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶8

Order on Board

¶9

13/06/2023

¶10

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 167/2022, registered at Police Station– Rakhi, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C.

¶11

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.09.2019, the SLC Educational Society, Hyderabad was awarded a contract for training of around 770 students in relation to training in placement linked skill Development Project in Chhattisgarh under DDD-GKY scheme floated by the State Government. In pursuance of the tender, the allotment order was issued in favour of SLC Educational Society.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in pursuance of terms and condition of the contract, Rs. 87 lacs

¶13

Page 2 of 3

¶14

was to be deposited, but inadvertently, he has deposited bank guarantee for Rs. 87,000/-. As such, FIR was lodged against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. He would further submit that the applicant was not involved in such offence, but subordinate staff has made some mistake for that he has requested the respondent to deposit a fresh bank guarantee and also lodged FIR No. 246/2021 on 14.08.2021 at Police Station- Abdullapurmet, Rachakonda Hyderabad against his subordinate staff to show his bonafide. It has been further contended that he has also written a letter to Mission Director (SRLM), office of Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhavan, Nava Raipur on 14.08.2021, wherein he has stated that he is ready and willing to deposit a fresh bank guarantee for the amount specified within 7 working days along with the penalty amount (if any) impose on them. He would also submit that he has already participated in the investigation proceedings initiated by the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed that this applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the anticipatory bail application submits that there is clear allegation against the applicant regarding commission of offence. He would further submit that since the applicant has submitted bank guarantee for Rs. 87,000/- only and has been given Rs. 3,45,23,635/- in two parts without fulfilling the terms and conditions of the contract, as such, he has cheated the respondent, hence, it is prayed that the application for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

¶17

From bare perusal of case diary, it is evident that the applicant was to be deposited bank guarantee for Rs. 87 lacs according to the terms and conditions of the tender whereas he has deposited only Rs. 87,000/- as bank guarantee, but there was no prima facie intention of the applicant to cheat the respondent as

¶18

Page 3 of 3

¶19

he has already written a letter on 14.08.2021 to the Mission Director (SRLM) showing his readiness and willingness to deposit a fresh bank guarantee for amount specified within 7 working days along with penalty amount. Considering these aspects of the matte, I am inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed and It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) That the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned police officer as and when required;

¶22

(ii) That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat undue influence to the prosecution witnesses;

¶23

(iii) That the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶24

Since the applicant has already assured the respondent to deposit a fresh bank guarantee specified along with the penalty amount (if any), he is directed to deposit the same within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order as per his letter dated 14.08.2021.

¶25

Certified copy as per rules.

¶26

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶27

Arun

Satyanarayan Thonukunuri (Wrongly mentioned in impugned order as T. Satyanarayan Thonukunuri) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Thonukunuri (Wrongly mentioned in impugned order as T. Satyanarayan Thonukunuri) v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Ajay Sharma Vs Ms Dipika Bhagat

Vijay Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Chandrakali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashank Shastri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shanti Chouhan Vs Shri D. D. Singh

Jhanak Ram Yadav Vs Sanjay Pillay