Single judge rejected anticipatory bail application, noting lack of bonafide purchase proof, and instead disposed of application by granting liberty to surrender for regular bail under Section 44 Cr.P.C.
Liberty to surrender for regular bail before the Magistrate.
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 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10210 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioner/A-2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case in Crime No.417/2014 of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad registered against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120-B of I.P.C.
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This petitioner is A-2 among the two accused of the crime registered for the above offences based on the private complaint of the defacto-complainant that was referred to the police in registering the said crime of which the averments show the defacto-complainant A.B.Sayeed through an auto consultant L.W-3, S.A.Ansari wanted to purchase Toyota Innova vehicle and moving through him of the vehicle of L.W-2 Thomas Reddy for sale for Rs.11.45 lakhs bearing No.AP 23 AK 0383 white colour of 2013 model and availed loan of Rs.7.5 lakhs from Tata Capital Finance Services and contributed the remaining out of his cash, reserved having paid the advance, after full payment to the said owner Thomas Reddy with transfer papers and key of the vehicle received and after that the defacto-complainant approached A-1 Md.Moiz, RTA agent who is known to him for registration of the vehicle as per the transfer forms obtained from Thomas Reddy with R.T.A concerned in the name of the defacto-complainant and A-1 having received Rs.4,000/- as commission charges and postponed on some pretext or the other by saying papers are misplaced and ultimately stated as if traced and asked to hand over the vehicle for production for registration gained the key and through the son of defacto-complainant who is away to the city, and instead of registering the vehicle in the name of the defacto-complainant by collusion with A-2 who is the petitioner herein cause registration in the
name of the petitioner/A-2 which fact he suppressed and postponing to give the papers which he came to know later and on verification through web browsing presented the complaint to take necessary action.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he is a bonafide purchaser of the vehicle by verifying the sale papers and the offence committed if any is A-1 and he is nothing to do. To believe the said version, it is not even mentioned in the anticipatory bail application as to with what proof and whom the so called payment of consideration was made for transfer of the vehicle which is in the name of A-2 when the vehicle is registered in the name of Thomas Reddy and the sale paper signed by Thomas Reddy is in the name of the defacto-complainant Angadi Babu Sahed having filed nothing even mentioned by this petitioner/A-2, hence he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. In fact, A-1 is granted regular bail being the main perpetrator according to the submission and A-2 is not perpetrator of the crime he could not produce any material as discussed supra. But there is a prima facie accusation from which this petitioner/A-2 is also not entitled to the anticipatory bail.
6. However, taking consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, instead of dismissing from not entitled to the pre-arrest bail, but for regular bail in considering his personal liberty, this application is disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioneraccused to surrender before the Learned Magistrate concerned to take into custody under Section 44 Cr.P.C by virtue of this order, move before the learned Magistrate for regular bail and with notice to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned and in such an event, the learned Judge/Magistrate shall consider for granting of bail in favour of the petitioner with necessary conditions preferably on the same day if not atleast by the next day.
7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
__________________________
Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, 4th September, 2014 ksh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a cheating case.
Whether the petitioner should proceed via regular bail instead of pre-arrest bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner/Accused No.2
Respondent-State
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
