Dismissed

M.Hamid Basha, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC19 Dec 2014CRLP/15325/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. The court held that the allegations prima facie disclosed commission of a grave and serious offence involving cheating, leading to the rejection of the bail application.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed.

M.Hamid Basha, Vs The State of A.P. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15325 of 2014

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The petitioner, who is A1, filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 165 of 2014 of Uravakonda Police Station, Anantapuramu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 76 of Chit Funds Act.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that A1 got a registered chit fund business in the name of ‘Sri Baba Chit Funds’, having registered office in Anantapur. The averments in the report would disclose that the petitioner along with other accused collected huge amounts from public and there after failed to return the same. It is alleged that since 30 days, all the accused are alleged to have been absconding by closing the said company. Basing on these allegations the above case came to be registered.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged and that a false case was registered against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that a list of 30 witnesses are examined and all of them categorically stated that the petitioner along with his wife instrumentally collected money from the public to a tune of Rs.37 lakhs through the said chit fund business.

¶8

A perusal of the C.D. file would disclose that 30 witnesses were examined and all of them specifically stated the role played by the petitioner. The said witnesses categorically stated that the petitioner along with his wife cheated the public to a tune of Rs.37 lakhs.

¶9

Since the allegations in the report prima facie discloses commission of offence by the petitioner and as the said offence is grave and serious in nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶10

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶11

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶12

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶13

19.12.2014 vhb

M.Hamid Basha, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Hamid Basha, v. The State of A.P.

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

Konga Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Alli Paramesh, Vs The State of Telangana.

Chegudi Suresh Babu, Vs The State of Ap

Lakkakula Srinivas Vs Chengalapuram Rajendra Swetha Priya

M.Venkata Subba Reddy © Babul Reddy, Vs The State of A.P. Rep by its Public Prosecutor

K.Vijaya Kumar S/o.Yellaiah Vs The State of Telangana