Allowed

Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2019CRLP/3093/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 3.20 crores, execute personal bonds with sureties, and report to police every alternate day during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail subject to: bank guarantee of Rs. 3.20 lakhs, personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties, and reporting to police every alternate day.

Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

131s8 l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THENINTH DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶7

HES iA
o t
ti)

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3093 OF 2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

DNC Infrastructure Private Limited, A Company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered ofhce at Plot No.i1, 13 and 13/1, # 206,ll Floor, SBR Gateway, Opp: Cyber Gateway, Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Director Sri D.Naresh Choudhary S/o. Kannaiah, R./o. FIat No.7A, 401, Lodha Bellezze, KPHB, IV Phase, Near RTO Office, Hyderabad.

¶11

Sri D.Naresh Choudhary, S/o. Kannaiah, R/o. Flat No.7A, 401, Lodha Bellezze, KPHB, IV Phase, Near RTO Office, Hyderabad.

¶12

Smt. Lavanya Kalagara, W/o. D.Naresh Choudhary, R/o. Flat No.7A, 401, Lodha Bellezze, KPHB, IV Phase, Near RTO Office, Hyderabad.

¶13

Petitioners/Accused Nos. I to 3

¶14

ANI)

¶15

The State of Telangana, through Public Prosecutor', High Court for the State ofTelangana at llyderabad.

¶16

RespondenVCon.rplainant

¶17

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed herein, the High Court nlay be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arest in connection with Crime No.343 of 2018 of P.S. Madhapur (Guttala), Cyberabad;

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners SRI RESU MAHENDER REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent

¶20

ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following;

¶22

¶23

HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶24

,3ItIMINAL PETITION No.3O93 of 2Ol9

¶25

ORDER,:

¶26

This^,lrimrnal Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners, who are A. 1 to A.3, seeking anticipatorz ba;l in Crime No.343 of 2018 of Madhapur (Guttala) PolLce Station, Cyberabad, Medak District, registered tbr the offences punishable under Sections 406, 42O r lw. St:ctirrns 34 and 506 of IPC.

¶27

The r:ase of the prosecution as per the Case Diary a record is tha t, the defacto complainant had lodged complaint stating that they are running a Real Estate Company ancl after successful voyage, the company ended up with sizeatrle debt payable to the bankers and when they were involved in the process of arrangement of funds through different ch a:rnels, they have come across A.2, who is the Managing Director of DNC Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad, alc,ng with his Liason Officer, with a promise to arrange funds ()n a Bank guarantee, and accordingly the complainant transferred Rs.3.20 Crores by involving another Director of DNC Infrastructure, later they cheated the complainant. ,,\fter realizing that they were cheated, they requested for rr:fund of INR Rs.3,20,00,000/- during 3'd week of March, 2018 but invain. They went to the extent of warning and threatt:ning to kill the defacto complainant if they approach ag;ain for money. Basing on the said complaint, the

¶28

-_.-.-1

¶29

\ GSD, J Crl.P.No.3093 of 2019 -b d

¶30

¶31

above Crime No.343 of 2018 has been registered against the petitioners/A. I to A.3 for the aforesaid offences.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A. 1 to A.3 and the iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. Perused the material on record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A. 1 to A.3 contends that the allegations made against the petitioners are all false and baseless and made for their statistical purpose and the dispute is only civil in nature. It is further contended that allegations levelled against the petitioners do not attribute any specific overt acts against the petitioners. It is also contended that most part of investigation has already been completed, except filing of cha-rge sheet and that the petitioners are ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient sureties and would cooperate with the investigation, if they were released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the relief sought in the above petition.

¶35

By taking into consideration the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and also keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A. 1 to A.3 by imposing some conditions.

¶36

¶37

¶38

Crl.P.No.3093 of 2019

¶39

¶40

In thr: r'c srrlt, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioners / A .-o A.3 are directed to be release,f on bail in the event^,.rf t.} e r arrest in connection with Crime No.343 of 2Ol8 of N{adhapur (Guttala) Police Station, Cyberabad, Medak District, apart from the condition of the petitioners,/A 1 to A.3 furnishing Bank Guarantee to a tune of Rs.3,20,OO,COO/- (Rupees three crores twenty lakhs only) before the tlcurt below concerned, the petitioners shall also execute seF,ara te personal bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh onlv', r:ach with two local sureties for a like sum each to the sati srfa c tion of the Station House Officer, Madhapur (Guttala) PolLce Station, Cyberabad, and subject to the condition that the petitioners/A. 1 to A.3 would cooperate with the investip;at.ion and shall report before the above Police Station, on every alternative day between 10-00 a.m. and 5-00 p.m. till ,:ompletion of investigation.

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand r:losed. c1F

¶42

¶43

SD/. N.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY ASSISTANT REGIS AR

¶44

//TRUE COPY// 0 "1, FOT ASS] STANT REGISTRAR

¶45

To,

¶46

The XV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga^Reddy District.^Kukatpally

¶47

The XXV Metr,:politan Magistrate, Miyapur, Kukatpally,^{RR District.}

¶48

The Station House c,fficer, Madhapur^{(Guttala) Police Station,Cyberabad.}

¶49

Two CCs to Pulli,r Prosecutor, High Court of^{Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT)}

¶50

one CC to Sri R.esu Mahender Reddy,^{Advocate (OPUC)}

¶51

one Spare Copl

<br>#

HIGH COURT

GSD,J

DATE: 9-7-2019

ORDER

CRL.P. NO.3093^()t? !019

¶58

PETITION ALL0WED

¶59

E
!4.
,/t .::,
.&
i
s
"
<br>t
,

Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited 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

md. shafiullah khan Vs state of telangana

Mr. Bashakarla Surya Teja , Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Bashakarla Surya Teja, Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Vinesh Narsayya Vemul Vs The State of Telangana

Kalvala Chandrashekar , Chandu Vs The State of Telangana

Kursam Marappa Vs The State of Telangana