Allowed

Smt Asra Begum v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2020CRLP/814/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three co-accused sought bail in Crl.PNos. 814, 892 and 910 of 2020 for offences involving deceptive fixed deposit schemes. The High Court granted bail to all three on operating a deposit taking business, holding they did not convert funds for personal use. The court imposed conditions including personal bonds, passport deposit, and appearance before the I/O weekly.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for the like amount each, passport deposit, and appearance before Investigating Officer weekly.

Smt Asra Begum Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

.<tt--

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

:PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI /' .-'-

¶6

CRJMINAL PETITION NOS: 814, 892 & 910 OF 2020

¶7

CRL.P. NO.814 0F 2020:

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Asra Begum, Wo. Mohd. Ateeq ur Rehman,

¶10

Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State ofTelangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

Respondent/Complainant

¶14

Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Cr. No. 213 of 2019 of PS CCS / SIT pending on the file of the XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad;

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner SRI MANOJ SATTAR Counsel for the Respondent ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 892 OF 2020 Between: Mohammed Siraj Ur Rahman, S/o. Mohammed Adam,

¶16

Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Telanganq rep. by its Public Prosecutor, tkough Station House Officer, Police Station Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, High Court of Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶19

Respondent/Complainant

¶20

Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in Crime No.2l3 o12019 dt.05.10.2019 registered U/Sec. 406, 420 and 506 of IPC and Section 5 of Telangana State Protection of Deposits of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and^proper in^the circumstances of the case;

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G,V.V.S.R SUBRAHMANYAM ' Counsel for the Respondent ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 910 OF 2020 Behveen:

¶23

Bushra Begum, Wo. Siraj Ur Rahman

¶24

Petitioner/Accused No. I

¶25

AND

¶26

The State ofTelangana, rep. by its^{PublicProsecutor,through Station HouseOfficer, Police,./'} Station Central Crihe Station, Hyderabad, High^Court ofTelangana^{State,Hyderabad.}

¶27

Respondent/Complainant

I I

Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court rnay be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in Crime No.2i3 of2019 dt.05.10.2019 registered U/Sec. 406,420 and 506 of IPC and Section 5 of Telangana State Protection of Deposits of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.V.V.S.R. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Ilespondent ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶33

The Court made the following;

¶34

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶35

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.814, 892 and 910 of 2020

¶36

COMMON ORDER:

¶37

Since all these Criminal Petitions, under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., are filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 seeking to enlarge them on bail in respect of the same Crime, vide Crime No.213 of 2019 on the file of CCS/SIT Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common order.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶39

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioners herein have made false promises luring the de facto complainant and others to give double the returns for fixed deposits and 3olo per month returns as profits stating it to be returns to be claimed as Halal money as^per Muslim Law and duped on religious sentimen| that at the instance of the^petitioners, the de facto complainant and others deposited huge sum totaling to Rs.20,60,000/-; that when the persons who deposited the money approached the petitioners to refund the amounts as promised, they failed to repay the same and that accused No.1 stated that the said amounts were deposited in Heera Group of Companies; and that along with the complaint, the

¶40

¶41

names of the^persons who have deposited money and the respective amounts deposited by them were also mentioned. Hence, the complaint.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.892 and 910 of 2020-accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the^petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences at any^point of time and they were unnecessarily arrayed as accused in the aforesaid crime; that the alleged offences would not attract any case against the petitioners and hence, he prayed to grant bail to them.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.No.814 of 2020-accused No.3 submitted that the^petitioner was employed as a Receptionist for administration of Diploma Classes carried in the organization; that she never accepted any deposits during the said duration; that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner; that the entire story narrated by the prosecution ls false, concocted and cooked up with an intention to falsely implicate the petltioner herein; and therefore, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner in the aforesaid crime.

¶44

Both the learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and they are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and are also ready to furnish solvent sureties in the event of their enlargement on bail.

¶45

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the garb of luring the depositors to give double the returns for their fixed deposit and returns @ 3olo per month as profits, the petitioners

6* I // I

I t

have collected money from the public but they failed to repay the same and avoided payment to the public and thereby, cheated the innocent public and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶50

As seen from the contents of the F.LR., the amounts collected from the depositors have been deposited in the Heera Group of Companies. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners herein have converted/deposited the amounts so collected for their personal use. Thus, looking into the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and other facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting into the merlts of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶51

The Criminal Petitions are accordingly allowed subject to the following terms and conditions;

¶52

(1) The petitioners are released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of

¶53

the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶54

(2) The petitioners shall deposit their respective passports before the Court concerned and they shall not leave the territory of India and also not leave the State of Telangana without^{prior permission} of the Court.

¶55

¶56

(3) The petitioners shall appear before the

¶57

Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10 am and 2^pm till the completion of investigation and filing of final report;

¶58

(4) Thereafter, the petltioners shall appear before the Court concerned on every date of hearing till the completion of trial;

¶59

(5) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and shall co-operate with the Investigating agency and they shall not misuse the liberty granted to them.

¶60

Subject to the above, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶61

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal

¶62

petition, shall stand closed.

¶63

SD/-T. RANGA BA BU ) /dSSISTANT REGI

¶64

//TRUE COPY//

¶65

SECl'ION^OFFICER

¶66

To, 1. The Metropolitan^{SessionsJudge, Hyderabad} ,- 2. The XIt eAal.^{Chi.fIut.tropolitanMagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad'}

¶67

The Station^{HouseOfficer,PS Central Crime Station,Hyderabad'}

¶68

The Superintendent'^{ChenchalgudaCentralPrison,WomenCell' Hyderabad'}

¶69

The Superintendent.^{ChenchalgudaCentral Prison,Hyderabad'}

¶70

Two Cts to Public^{Prosecutor,High Courtof Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT)}

¶71

Two CCs to^{Sri G.V.V.S.R.Subrahmanyam,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶72

one CC to Sri Manoj^{Sattar, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶73

one Spare^CopY

HIGH COtiRT

GSD,J

DATE: 20-2-2020

ORDER

cRr.P. NOS. 814, 892 & 910^()F 2020

¶79

!
v
BAIL
>
+
,.$
\ /
,.'

Smt Asra Begum v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Asra Begum 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

B.Ramakrishna , Bonthalakoti Rama Krishna Vs State of Telangana and another

Mrs.Kanukula Animaka Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

T. Saraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. K. Sridevi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Asra Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Siraj Ur Rahman Vs The State of Telangana