Allowed

Jyothsna Amilineni v. The State

Telangana HC17 Apr 2012CRLP/3139/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held it was a fit case because the petitioner did not induce the complainant to invest money, even though her husband transferred funds via an alleged board resolution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail pending registration of case on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties for like sum, liable to not induce witnesses and make herself available for interrogation.

Jyothsna Amilineni Vs The State — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3139 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, seeking to enlarge the petitioner/A3 on bail, in the event of her arrest in connection with FIR No.39 of 2011 of CID, Hyderabad, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The defacto complainant lodged a complaint with Addl.DGP, CID, Hyderabad on 25.07.2011, alleging that he is one of the major share holders and Director of Teleonto technologies Private Limited (hereinafter, the company), and that he purchased 35.19 lakh shares of the company by paying a sum of Rs.3,62,85,000/-, and he has also agreed to advance a loan of Rs.6,63,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.5,22,00,000/- had already been advanced, that though 35.19 lakh shares had to be allotted to him as per the Share Holder Agreement (SHA) between him, A1 and A2, only 4,90,673 shares have been allotted to him, that though as per the SHA, the money invested by him in the company by purchasing shares had to be exclusively used for clearing off the debts of the company, that A1 illegally transferred a sum of Rs.4.6 crores to Biz Services Consultation, Zenser Services and Green Gen Power companies, without any authorization from the Board of Directors, and that he came to know of this fraud after going through the financial report. Based on the complaint, a case in the aforesaid crime was registered.

¶7

The allegation is that certain amounts have been transferred to the firm of the present petitioner/A3. There is no inducement made by the petitioner to the defacto complainant to invest the amount into her proprietoryship concern. No doubt, her husband transferred the amount

¶8

by virtue of alleged Board Resolution passed by the company. Since the present petitioner has not induced the complainant to transfer the amount, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to her.

¶9

Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner/A3 shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest by CID Police, Hyderabad, in the above crime, on her executing bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials, and on further condition she shall not cause inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, and that she shall make herself available for interrogation as and when required by the police.

¶10

____________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶11

17^th April, 2012 KSM

Jyothsna Amilineni v. The State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothsna Amilineni v. The State

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

Dontha Vijaya Kumar, (Accused No.1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vivek , Poojari Vs State of Ap., Rep.byits

G.Krishna Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yerragolla Rajaiah, Vs Banda Srinivas

Veerla Mahalaxmi Vs The State Piduguralla P.S.

Thadi Gurubhavan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh