Dismissed

M.Venu Goud, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Jul 2012CRLP/5290/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by A2, an accused in a liquor shop syndicate case involving charges of corruption and criminal conspiracy. The court held the case was not fit for anticipatory bail due to the gravity of the misconduct alleged. The petitioner was directed to surrender and seek regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender to Investigating Officer or Court to seek regular bail.

M.Venu Goud, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5290 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner/A2 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1)(a)(d) / 13(2) and 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 109/34 IPC. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail. As of now there are three persons who are identified as A1 to A3 in this case. It is a case relating to running a liquor shop syndicate in Shamshabad of Ranga Reddy District. It is alleged that 9 liquor shops of Shamshabad formed into one syndicate in September 2010 under the leadership of A1. A1 to A3 are stated to be office bearers of the said syndicate. It is alleged that A1 to A3 have been collecting money from 9 liquor shops daily through their syndicate office workers and also paid Demand Drafts for lifting stocks regularly to the syndicate shops paying rentals to the nine shops regularly. It is further alleged that A1 to A3 were also paying bribes to public servants. According to the prosecution, the syndicate paid huge

¶5

bribes to the officials of Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶6

officials of Police Department and also to media persons. The Investigating Officer also collected evidence by way of statements of witnesses and he is stated to have seized certain records at the time of search on 16.12.2011. It is contended that A2 has no connection with any of those nine shops which are alleged to be in the syndicate. It is pointed out by senior counsel for the petitioner that except naming private persons and showing them as A1 to A3 in this case, the investigating agency was not serious in identifying officials of the Police Department and Excise Department and other persons who received bribes. The clear picture will emerge only after completion of investigation, which includes taking A2 into custody and interrogating him to elicit clues from him towards the end destination of the bribes paid by the syndicate. The alleged bribes said to have been paid to officials of the above departments run into several millions of rupees. According to the investigation, A2 is running wine shop in the syndicate in binami name of A3. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶7

In the result, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is

¶8

directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the

¶9

Court and seek regular bail thereafter.

¶10

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.

¶11

4^th July 2012 Rns

M.Venu Goud, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venu Goud, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

R.Venkatesh Vs The State of Ap.

Nelaturu Ranganath, Vs Nelaturu Batchi Rangadu

Mohd. Irfan, Vs M/s. Kesari Fibres Pvt. Ltd.

Kolli Krishna Kishore, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppalapati Anjaneya Vara Prasad (A-1) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R.Ramakrishna Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh