Allowed

K. Devender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jul 2019CRLP/3164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Telangana High Court allowed Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.PC. granting anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 3 to 5 in a cheating case, directing surrender within 15 days and imposing personal bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 to 5 granted anticipatory bail on surrender within 15 days, subject to personal bonds and reporting conditions.

K. Devender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

[^3ls8 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

r o R
,J'
o
-
ALi { {

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 316.1 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Devender Reddy, S/o K. Ramakrishna Reddy,

¶10

K Ramakishna Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy

¶11

M Jagan Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy

¶12

....Petitioners/Accused No.3 to 5

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofTelangana, Hyderabad.

¶15

..,,Respondent

¶16

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioners/Accused No. 3 to 5 on Bail in the event of Arrest in connection with Crime No. 8/2019, on the file ofBachupally Police Station, Cyberabad., on any condition or conditions

¶17

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Advocate for the Petitioners and ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TC) for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

IITE) HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶20

CF.IMINAL PETITION No. 3164 of 2C119

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Proce<irrre, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/A.3 to A.5, for grant of anticipat.ory bail in Crime No.S of 2Ol9 of Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406. 4'.2.O, 379, 4O3,506 and 1208 of IPC.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.3 to A.5, the learned Additio.rrrrl Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState and perused the record.

¶24

The case of prosecution, in brief, is that during the month of February 2018, the accused approached the de /acfo complainant and offered him t,r invest money in his business. Believing the same, the de facto cornplainant invested an amount of Rs.29,70,000/- and also paid Rs.2,00,OOO/- towards shop advance and Rs.2,20,000/towards infrastrur:ture. Therea-fter, the de facto complainant and A. 1 entered into partnership deed dated 17.02.2018 and started automobile spare parts business. On verification of entire stock, the de facto complainant noticed that A. 1 did not maintain proper records and also found that there was deficit of an amount of Rs. 15.00 lakhs. \Vhen questioned, A. 1 admitted his^{guilt before the} elders and assured to repay an amount of^Rs.26,l4,OOO l-^{to the} complainant on or before 31.L2.2OI8. In spite of the^{same, he failed} to repay the same, Thereafter, without consent and knowledge of the

¶25

)

¶26

de facto complainant, A. 1 along with A.2 to A.4 entered into the shop premises arrd stolen spare parts and thereby cheated him.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.3 to A.5 would submit that the petitioners are in no way concerned with the partnership business, they are innocent and are falsely implicated in this case; that at the time of alleged theft, they are not present at the scene of offence; that the police have completed the investigation and charge sheet is yet to be fiied in this case and ultimately prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.3 to A.5.

¶28

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed to grant bail to the petitioners/A.3 to A.5 and contends that the petitioners/A.3 to A.5 are relatives of A. 1, who is yet to be arrested; that the amount involved in the present case is huge; that the petitioners are avoiding to make payment to the de facto^{complainant and that they are not entitled for anticipatorybai1.}

¶29

On a perusal of the record, it appears that MOU and partnership deed were executed between A. 1 and the de facto complainant. The petitioners have no role in the said partnership business between the de facto complainant and A. 1.

¶30

Since major part of the investigation is completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners/A.3 to A.5 on certain conditions.

¶31

Accordingly, the petitioners/A.3 to A.5 are directed to surrender before the Statiorf fior"" Officer, Bachupally Police

¶32

¶33

Station, Cyberabrrd, within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioners/A.3 to A.5 on bail, on their executing personal bonds for a suol of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two srrreties for a like sum each to his satisfaction. On such release. the' petitioners/A.3 to A.5 shall report before the said Station House Officer, on every Ttresday and Saturday between 10:00 A.M. anrl [t5:00 P.M., for a period of ten (10) vueeks or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier and shall abide by the conditions stipr:1ated in Section 438(2\ Cr.P.C and co-operate with the investigating olficer in investigating the case.

¶34

Accordinslr', the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶35

¶36

SD/- N.PURUSH^OTHAMREDDY ASSIST^{Al{T REG} RAR

¶37

//TRUE^COPY//

¶38

l-./-\

¶39

FOT ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶40

T o 1 The II AJCJ-cunr-XIX^{MetropolitanMagistrate'Kukatpally' Cvberabad} 2 iir" il"i,*^{H"rse officer, Bachupallvp:t1":Jgt':l'Cvberabad'} 3 ffi;a;;^{sRi. v noopBsirtu'rtaennr'oov Advocate[oPUC]} 4 Two ccs^{puBL IC pRosECUi-6n trcl'nigi,courtat Hyderabad (oUT)} 5 One^sparecoPY

HIGH COURT

GSD.,I

DATED: 4.7.2019

CRL.P.NO.3r64 0F 201!,

¶46

ANTICIPATORY BAI],

¶47

THa S
? (-\ ^;.
''4 :- r-
'(a
I L' O4JUL 4., 'i) $'r
,.*
<br>

K. Devender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Devender Reddy, 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

Goparaju Ravi Kumar,RaviKojjaw Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Pinninti Suresh Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Peddalingannagari Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana

Arem Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

K. Pramod , Anand , Ananda Rao Vs The State of Telanagana

K. Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana