Dismissed

S. Narsimulu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jan 2015CRLP/32/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the application. Relying on the indictment in the remand report detailing collusion among staff for fund misappropriation, the Court held the petition did not deserve relief during the investigation phase.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 32 of 2015 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; anticipatory bail was not granted.

S. Narsimulu Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 32 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, who is accused No.3, filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.178 of 2014 of Makthal Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2014, the Deputy General Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Mahabubnagar, lodged a report alleging misappropriation of funds by the employees of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited Branch, Makthal. It is alleged that during the course of verification of accounts of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Makthal Branch, it was found that the accused, who are employees of the Bank have manipulated the record in branch, committed criminal breach and misappropriated the funds of the bank. The total amount alleged to have been misappropriated was Rs.83,83,577/-. Basing on these allegations the above case came to be registered.

¶6

Heard 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 a false case has been foisted against him. According to him, there is no material to show that the petitioner is involved in the crime. He further submits that

¶8

since the petitioner is already placed under suspension his request may be considered.

¶9

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that in a case of this nature where all the bank officials conspired and committed the offence, the petitioner does not deserve any relief.

¶10

A reading of the averments in the remand report clearly reveal the participation of the staff of the said branch in committing the offence. During the course of verification of the accounts of the bank, it was found that all the employees, colluded, manipulated the records and committed misappropriation of funds. Since the averments in the report prima facie constitutes the offences alleged, as the name of the petitioner is found in the First Information Report and since the case is still at the stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶12

_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶13

27.01.2015 gkv

S. Narsimulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Narsimulu v. The State of Telangana

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

Mekala Girish Vs The State of Telangana

Hanumandlu Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Duvadda Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Hadi Bin Saleh Vs Atifa Begum

Bellamkonda Kishore Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pitla Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana