Allowed

Nanavath Naik v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jul 2019CRLP/3721/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner alleging a cheating offence under Section 420 IPC. The court imposed conditions requiring surrender within 15 days, execution of a personal bond with sureties, and attendance during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail; directed to surrender within 15 days and execute personal bond with two sureties.

Nanavath Naik Vs The State of Telangana — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

[³¹⁵⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN :PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRl DEVI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3721 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Nanavath Naik, S/o. Pan Sing Naik,

¶8

Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Courl of Telangana, At Hyderabad

¶11

Respondent

¶12

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Petition, the High Couft may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with in the event of the arrest in the F.l.R No.394 of 2019 on the file of PS-KPHB, Cyberabad District

¶13

Counsel for Petitioner: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI

¶14

Gounsel for Respondent: PUBLIC PROSEGUTOR

¶15

ORDER

¶16

¶17

T,IIE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

ozuMINAL PETITION No.3721 OF 2019

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C), is filed by the petitioner/l\ccused for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.394 of 2Ol9 of KPHB Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 .P.C.

¶21

Hear<l learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and the learned lr.d<litional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent,/ State. Perused the record.

¶22

On 1i2.O6.2O79, the de facto complainant came to the police station and krdged a complaint, wherein it is stated that he is working in a private sector and invested Rs. 1O,00,000/- in the petitioner cr>mpany,,with a promise to pay dividend/profit of l0o/o - 1870 every rnonth on the principal amount; that the petitioner also executed Memorandum of Understanding to that effect; that on demand, petitioner paid divided till August, 2018 and thereafter, the petitionr:r did not pay the divided and thereby, cheated the de /acto^{complainant.Hence, he prayed to take necessary action} against the petitioner.

¶23

Learnr:d counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner paid dividends to the petitioner till August, 2018 and thereafler, as there are no profits, he could not pay the dividends; lhert the petitioner did not cheat the de facto complainant as alleged in the complaint; that as per MOU, the petitioner u'ill return the principle amount to the de facto complainant; that even the entire reading of the complaint, no

¶24

! t

¶25

offence is made under Section 42O I.P.C as the petitioner did not induced the de facto cornplainant to part with the amount and hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶26

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of the bail to the petitioner/accused.

¶27

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the gravity of offence alleged, the petitioner/ accused can be granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C on some conditions.

¶28

Accordingly, the petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, KPHB Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the Station House Oflicer, KPHB Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, shall release the petitioner/accused on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer. On such release, the petitioner/Accused shall attend before the said Station House Officer on every Sunday day between 10:OO AM and 6:00 PM till completion of investigation and shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 438 (21 Cr.P.C and co-operate with the Investigation Officer in concluding investigation.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

Sd/-M.MANIULA AssrsrAry^nrrr(rnnn ,.I'RT]I.] COPY// \r,/ FoT ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶33

To. ],.I.hcIlAJCJCumXAMMMetropolitanMagistrateKukatpallyCyberabad. Z.^'if,. Stuti*^{HouseOfficer, KPHBPS, Cyberabad.District.} ^ ^, L O"" CC.^{SRl. RAJAGOPALLAVANTAYI Advocate[OPUC]} +. i*" ccr,"^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,High courtat Hvderabad[oUT]} 5. ore^{Spare CoPY}

¶34

(iR Note: The Tl^{pographicalmistake of thedate of ortleris correctedas12-07-2019} Substitutedttrisamenaeoo-.tt".,r.pr*.ofearlierorderwhichwasdispatchedonl6.0T.20l9

¶35

-Sd/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

HIGH COURT

GSDJ";'

DATED:12106t2019

Dated: 12-07-2019

AMENDED^ORDER

ORDER

CRLP.No.372'.1 of²⁰¹⁹

¶44

;r-.'tr
.S+
le* ,:,,
-"S
K" ',9 rrr!l

¶45

BAIL

¶46

Nanavath Naik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanavath Naik 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

Mulley Swaroopa Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Rawoof Vs State of T.S.

Dasari Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Venkata Thade Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Kishore Biyani, and Another, Vs Smt. P. Prameela

Yeturu Nagendra Rao Vs The State of Telangana