Allowed

Nallapati .S.R.chandra sekhar Rao v. The State of Ap

Telangana HC14 Mar 2018CRLP/1060/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hyderabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing multiple cheques and false bookkeeping charges. The court distinguished the petitioner's case from co-accused by relying on cooperative society byelaws, finding the procedure for minutes did not prove misconduct at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; surrender required within 15 days; personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each.

Nallapati .S.R.chandra sekhar Rao Vs The State of Ap — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

ri>>tt:5*'a43Jtc1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF N/ARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN :PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SIVT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶5

Crl.l'.No. I {)60 of 20lt'l:

¶6

Between:

¶7

Nallapati Siva llanra Chanclra Sckhar Rao, S/o Latc^{Venkatcsrvarlu Chorvtlary}

¶8

Petitioner (Accused No.1 in Cr. No.29412017 of Arundelpet P.S., Guntur, Guntur Dist)

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶11

Respondent

¶12

Petition under Section^zl38 of Cr.P.C. Praying tlrat in thc circumstances stalecl in thc glounds Illerl thelein, thc FIigh Court may be^plcascd kr cnlarge the pctitioncr on bail in tlre evcnt ol'lris arrcst in corrncction r.vitlr Cr.No. 29412017 r-egistered by thc Alundclpet Policc Statiorr. Gurrtur'. Guntur District in thc interest o1'justicc.

¶13

Crl.l'.No. I⁽⁾⁶¹ of 2(lllt:

¶14

Bctrveen:

¶15

Nallapati Siva Rama Clrandra Sckhar Rao, S/o. Late Vcnkatesr.varlu Chorvdary

¶16

Petitioner

¶17

(Accused No.1 in Cr. No.296/2017 of Arundelpet P.S., Guntur, Guntur Dist)

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of A.P., rep by Public Proseculor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶20

Respondent

¶21

Petitiorr untler Sectiorr^.4ilJ of^('r.P.C. praying tltat in thc circumslauces stated in the gloLrnds liled thercin, the High Court may be pleascd to enlarge the pctitioncl on bail in the event ofhis arrest ilt cortnection rvith Clr.No. 29612017 r'egistered by thc Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District in the interest ofjustice.

¶22

Crl.P.No. IO(rtl of 20l tl:

¶23

Between:

¶24

Nallapati Siva Rama Chandra Sekhar Rao, S/o. Late Venkateswarlu Cliowclary

¶25

Petitioner (Accused No.1 in Cr. No.295/201 7 of Arundelpet P.S., Guntur, Guntur Dist)

¶26

AND

¶27

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

Respondent

,.\

l)etitiotr Ltntler Scction^.lJti o1'Cr'.P.C. praying that in thc circutnstauces stated ir.) llrc glorrntls tilerl thcrein, the I-ligh Court rnay be pleased to enlitrge tlre petitroner.on bail in tlre cvcnt of lris arrest in conncctiorr rvith Cr.No. 29512017 registered by the Arundelpet I)olicc Statiorr- Cr:ntur, Cuntur District in tltc interest ol'justice.

¶32

( rl.P.No. I(l7tl o1 2l)lli:

¶33

lJetrvecrr:

¶34

Nallaplti Silu Rlma C'hantlra Sckhar Rrur, S/o. Late Venkatesrvarlu Chowdary

¶35

Petitioner

¶36

(Accused in Cr.No.298/2017 of Arundelpet P.S., Guntur, Guntur Dist)

¶37

AND

¶38

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶39

Respondent

¶40

l'ctition Ltncler Section.13IJ ol'Cr.P.C. praying that in the circurnstances stated in llte grorrntls llled therein, thc I ligh C'ourl rnay bc pleased to enlarge tlre petitioner on bail in tlre elcnt ol his arrcst in corrnection with Cr-.No. 29812011 registcretl by tho -Anrndelpct l)olice Stirtiorr. Cr-rrrtr-rr, Ctrntur Distliet in tlle interest oI'.jtrstrce.

¶41

('rl.P.No. | (ltl2 ol 20Itl:

¶42

[]etween:

¶43

Nallapati Siva Rarra Chantlra Sekhal Rlo, S/o. Late Venkatcsrvarlu Chowdary

¶44

Petitioner

¶45

(Accused No.1 in Cr.No.299/2017 of Arundelpet P.S., Guntur, Guntur Dist)

¶46

AND

¶47

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶48

Respondent

¶49

l'etition Lrnder Section 43lJ ol'Cr'.P.C. praying that in the circurrstances stated in the grountls lllecl therein, the High Court may be pleased to enlirrge the petitioner on bail in the event ol'his arrest in conrrection rvith Cr.No. 29912011 registcrctl [.ty the Arundelpet Policc Station, GLrntrLr, Gurttur District in the interest ofjtrsttce.

¶50

These Petitions coming on tbr hearing, upon perusirtg the petitions ancl the gnrunds tilctl tlrerein and upon ltearirrg the arguments o1' Sri C.V.S.Mehar Kutlar, ,,.(lvocutc lbr the Petitioner in all the Petitions irnd of the PLrblic Prosccutor (AP) lbr the Ilespondent irr all the Petitions, the Court made the lollowing

¶51

( ) It I) l,t t{:

¶52

¶53

SMT ]USTICE T, RA]ANI

¶54

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1060, 1061, 1068. 1078 and 1082 of 2018

¶55

9-oM_t4-9x_o,IlDEB:

¶56

These petitions are filed, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the^petitioner, who is 41, in Cr.Nos.294, 295,296,298 and 299 of 2Ol7 on the file of the Station House Officer, Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District. The offences alleged are under Sections 420, 4O8,409, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -79(1)(f) and 79A(1)(c)(2) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.

¶57

Heard the counsel for the petltioner and the Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent.

¶58

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the other accused, in this case, were granted anticipatory bail by virtue of separate orders in CRLP.No.9655 of 2077; CRLP.No.9653 of 2OL7; CRLP.Nos.9652 and L0721 of 2017 and CRLP.NoS.9654 and 70722 of 2017 dated 03.01.2018 and CRLP.Nos.943,944,945,946 and 947 of 2018 dated 06.02.2018.

¶59

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner, on the ground that he does not stand on the same footing as that of the other accused, who were granted anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner, who was the then President of the Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, fabricated the minutes of the general body meeting, which was, allegedly, conducted and the fact that except the petitioner nobody signed on the minutes

¶60

¶61

of the meeting of the general body, shows that the same is manipulated.

¶62

In answer to the said contention, the counsel for the petitioner relies on the byelaws of the District Cooperative Central Bank wherein clause VII of byelaw 14, reads as follows:

¶63

VII. Record Proceedinqs:

¶64

The proceedings of the General meeting shall be recorded in the minute book maintained with the CEO and signed by the President of the meeting concerned at the close of the proceedings. The resolutions so passed by the General Body shall be displayed on the notice board of the Head Office and shall be available for inspection/verification by the members.

¶65

The counsel, relying on the above byelaw, contends that there is no need for the President to obtain the signatures of the other members of the general body, who participated in the meeting and it would suffice, if the President signs on the minutes.

¶66

The Public Prosecutor, except relying on the minutes of the meeting of the general body, on which only the petitioner signed, does not put forth any other material, to distinguish the petitioner from oth er accused.

¶67

The aforesaid orders, by virtue of which anticipatory bail was granted to the other accused, show that it was observed by this Court, that the general body meeting was held on 12.O5.2017 and there was approval and acceptance of the allocation of budget to the security services and hence, it cannot be said that the Managing Committee violated the procedure. This Court categorically held that it is for the

\"-

officials of the Bank to maintain records etc. relating to the engagement of services of security personnel. It also observed that the truth or otherwise of the allegations can only be determined after due trial. Hence, this Court opines that absolutely no foundatlon is laid for the argument of the Public Prosecutor that the^petitioner herein, stands on a difterent footing/ than the accused, who were^granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶72

B. Hence, considering the above, this Court finds it a fit case to grant anticipatory ball to the petitioner.

¶73

Hence, the crimlnal petitions are allowed. The^petitioner ls directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur, Guntur Distrlct within 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executlng a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) wlth two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer. Further, on such release, the petitioners shall abide by the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Criminal Procedure Code, as under:

¶74

The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶75

The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office r;

¶76

The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶77

AN"f-

¶78

¶79

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

¶80

sha ll stand closed.

¶81

¶82

RANGA B ASSIS'TANT REGISsd/- ".

¶83

1i I'ITUE COPY //

¶84

1irr ,,\SSlS l-AN'f EGISTRAR

¶85

¶86

I . The District and Sessions J utlge, Cuntur.

¶87

The lll Arlditional Sessions Jutlge, Cuntur.

¶88

The SHO, Arundalpet Policc Station, Cuntur Tou,n, Cuntur District-

¶89

4.^'lrvo CC's to the Public Prosecutor (AP), High Court, Hyd(OUT)

¶90

Onc C('to Sri G.V.S.Mehar I(Uurar, Advocate(OPUC)

¶91

Orre spare copy.

SAI'I

lil(;il c'oUlr.'t

.f R.I

DATED: l.l-0-1-2018

OIIDEIT

CRL.P.Nos. 1060, 1061, 1068, 1 078 and 1082 of 2018

¶98

..'r-'I I C I I'. \l Ol{' BAIL

¶99

,
(, ,
Y,

Nallapati .S.R.chandra sekhar Rao v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallapati .S.R.chandra sekhar Rao v. The State of Ap

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

Sathyam Seti Seetha Ramana Vs the State of Ap

Ramineni Venkateswarlu Vs State

Arindam Choudhary Vs The State of Telangana

Tamatala Ramakrishna ,Krishnan and another Vs State of Ap.

Chandha Bhai Sasi Rao Pawer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sangeri Mallesh, Vs The State of Telangana