The Hon'ble Court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by an accused who allegedly received and absconded with cash proceeds from his son's cheating case, deeming it not a fit case for bail due to absconding.
Anticipatory bail granted in the event of arrest was denied, and the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3658 of 2012
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to direct the arresting police officials to release the petitioner, who is A.2, on bail in the event of his arrest in crime no.261 of 2011 of Ramgopalpet police station, Secunderabad.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioner is A.2 in the crime. The allegation is that A.1, who is son of petitioner/A.2, stated to have received 21,250 mobile hand sets from the complainant on several occasions and sold away the same, but did not hand over the cash to the defacto complainant. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the present case is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. During the course of investigation, it came to light that A.1 handed over cash of about more than Rs.2.00 lakhs to the present petitioner and from the date of registration of the case, the petitioner is said to be absconding.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it
is purely a civil transaction where the defacto complainant can proceed legally so as to recover the amount and that there is no element of cheating on the part of the petitioner and therefore he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that since registration of the crime, the petitioner is said to be absconding and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the cash he allegedly received from son of the petitioner, who is A.1.
6. A.1, who is son of the petitioner, was entrusted with 21,250 mobile hand sets whose value is more than Rs.2.00 crores and after selling those hand sets, he allegedly misappropriated the amount and cheated the defacto complainant. Thereafter, he allegedly handed over entire cash of Rs.2.00 crores to his father, who is the petitioner. From the date of registration of the present crime, the petitioner is said to be absconding. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(K.C.BHANU, J.)
23.04.2012 DRK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3658 of 2012
Date: 23.04.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of receiving misappropriated sale proceeds and absconding.
Whether the petitioner's alleged absconding renders him not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (accused A.2)
Defacto complainant (A.1's father)
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
