Allowed

Rashi Gupta v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC20 Jan 2020CRLP/225/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court heard criminal petitions filed for anticipatory bail. The petitioners were accused of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The court granted bail on satisfaction of recording personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions allowed; petitioners directed to surrender within 15 days and be released on bail after executing personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties.

Rashi Gupta Vs The State of Telangana and another — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF ]ANUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

: PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRL,P, NOs: 225 AND 226 OF 2O2O

¶6

CRL.P. NO: 225 OF 2O2O

¶7

Between :

¶8

Rashi Gupta, W/o, Pratyush Tripati

¶9

Petitioner/A.2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Chaitanyapuri, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Judicature of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶12

Respondent

¶13

2, K.Surekha, W/o.K.Vara Prasad, Occ. Employee Indusind Bank, R/o. Flat No.206, Vijaya Sahai, Eside lvlaster Minds lr. College, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

.... Respo nd e nt/Defacto Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition filed$'erein, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate to enlarge/release the petitioner/A.2 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the Crime No.333 of 2019 dl.Ol/06/2Ot9 on the file of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate.

¶16

CRL.P. NO: 226 OF 2O2O

¶17

Between :

¶18

Cheemakurthi Venkata Ramesh, S/o. C.,Gurunadham,

Petitioner/A.1

AND

The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Chaitanyapuri, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of ludicature of Telangana at F'lyderabad

¶23

K.Surekha, W/o.K.Vara Prasad, Occ. Employee Indusind Bank, R/o. Flat No.206, Vijaya Sahai, Eside lvlaster lvlinds Jr, College, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶24

..... Respondent/Complainant

¶25

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. prayinl that in the circumstances stated^-l the petition filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate to enlarge/release the petitioner/A,l on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in connectlon with the Crime No.333 of 2019 dt. 01106120t9 on the file of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda Police Co m m iss ione rate.

¶26

These petitions coming on for hearing, upon peruslng the Petitions and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri tvl P Kashyap, Advocate for the Petitioner in both Crl.Ps., and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 in both Crl.Ps., ihe Court made the fo llow in g.

ORDER

----r

i I ! I

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶32

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 225 AND 226 0F 2020

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

These two Criminal Petitions, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), are filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-1 respectively, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.333 of 2019 of P.S. Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506,294 and 354 ofthe Indian Penal Code.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶36

In the FIR, it is infer alia stated that the petitioners are working as Regional Head HR (Mumbai) and Branch Manager, Jeedimetla Branch of HDFC Bank. The de facto complainant gave a complaint to the police alleging that she is a former employee of HDFC Bank, Gaddiannaram Branch and during her tenure, on the instigation and force of the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, she has misappropriated funds of few customers of the Bank and also liquidated their Fixed Deposits without their consent and diverted funds to her own accounts with different banks.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A-l and A-2 would submit that the de facto complainant was suspended from her service with HDFC Bank through order dated 22.72.2017 and subsequently, her services were terminated from HDFC Bank on 27.06.2018. Hence, to cover up her financial irregularities, she^is trying to implicate the petitioners though no act of^illegality, irresponsibility or negligence is committed by the^{petitioners. It is}

---

further submitted the petitioners are willing to co-operate with the investigation as and when required and they arc having good antecedents. They further undertake to^present themselves before the authorities zLs and when required. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A- 1 and A-2.

¶44

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-Statc opposed to grant anticipator-r' bail to the petitioners/A- 1 ,and A-2.

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstanccs of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 on some conditions.

¶46

AccordingJv, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 are directed to surrendcr before the Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station. Rachakonda District, ,ithin a period of 15 days from the date of tl-ris order. On such surrender, the said Station House Ofhcer shall release the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 on bail, on their executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. i5,000/- (Rupees filteen thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to his satisfaction. On such release, the petitioners/A-1 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and co-opererte with the investigating officer in investigating the case.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶48

closed

¶49

¶50

SAILESi4I SDI-K. '[ATT-T REGI.^s1'?i..s.R ASS:S

//TRuE^coPY//

SECTION^OFFlCER

!'--r''*-

The XI Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Rachakonda 2. The Station House OfFicer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda Police

¶58

Commissionerate

¶59

Two CCs to the Publlc Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶60

One CC to Sri M P Kashyap, Advocate (OPUC)

¶61

One spare copy.

HIGH COURT

GSD,J

DATED: 20.01.202:(l

ORDER:

CRLP. NO: 225 ANI) 226 OF^2O2O

¶67

BAIL

¶68

?t,lm wo
.7

Rashi Gupta v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashi Gupta v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Garlapati Jaihnder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Munny Vs The State of Telengana.

Syed Naushad Ali Vs State of Telangana

Baig Moharnmaddin Vs The State of Telangana

Putta Raju Vs The State of Telangana

GaddamAppi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana