Dismissed

Ch.Raghavendra, and another v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jul 2019CRLP/3902/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Petition under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court rejected a plea for anticipatory bail regarding charges of cheating and forgery. The court found the allegations of misappropriation too significant to grant relief, directing the petitioners to surrender and approach the sessions court for regular bail instead.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; petitioners directed to surrender and move bail application in the concerned Court.

Ch.Raghavendra, and another Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3902 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2, seeking to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.293 of 2019 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 408, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶5

It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners being the employees of the business run by the de-facto complainant for hair transplantation and manufacture of pancher solution, had collected an amount of Rs.10,000/- from one K. Surya Durga Prasad Bhanu, a resident of Vijayawada, for distribution and dealership and deposited the same in their personal accounts and that they also collected an amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the clients, but they had manipulated the documents and misappropriated those amounts causing huge loss to the business, thereby cheated the de-facto complaint.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners had resigned their jobs in the business run by the defacto complainant and they are innocent of the alleged offences. He would further submit that this case is foisted against the petitioners as a counter blast to the case in Cr.No.217 of 2019 of Pendurthy

¶7

¶8

Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to furnish any security that may be ordered by the Court.

¶9

Since several allegations of forgery, manipulation of documents, misappropriation of amounts and cheating were made against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.

¶10

Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners/A1 and A2 are directed to surrender before the concerned Court and move an application for bail in accordance with law.

¶11

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand dismissed.

¶12

_____________ G. SRI DEVI, J 19^th July 2019 sj

Ch.Raghavendra, and another v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Raghavendra, and another 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

Chandaboina Mamatha , Gujjula Mamatha Vs The State of Telangana

Gujjula Ajay Vs The State of Telangana

S. Kumara Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. K. Laxmi Narayana Vs State of Telangana

Syed Irfan Sulaiman Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Irfan Sulaiman Vs The State of Telangana