Allowed

T. Saraiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Feb 2020CRLP/889/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to the petitioner accused of misappropriation of funds and stamps. Conditions included a personal bond, sureties, cooperation with investigation, and weekly reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties for similar sums, subject to conditions of cooperation and reporting.

T. Saraiah Vs The State of Telangana — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGO'O #1'U

¶3

HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 889 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Saraiah, S/o. Durgaiah.

¶9

Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the CriminalPetition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Koilkonda Police Station to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.10 of 2020 of Koilkonda Police Station, l\r1aha bubnagar District

¶14

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI C DAMODAR REDDY Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following ORDER:

¶15

HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.889 of 2O2O

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C IS filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.10 of 2o2o on the file of the S.H.O., Koilkonda Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.O1.2O2O ar about 11.30 hours, the Inspector of Posts, Mahabubnagar West Sub Division gave a report to the police stating that he went to Koilkonda SO on 14.08.2019 at around 9.25 hours as per the telephonic directions of the SPO, Mahabubnagar and verified the physical cash held in the SO and only Rs.1,93,160/- is found available and there is shortage of cash to the tune of Rs.a,06,524 l- with regard to SO daily transaction report, dated 13.08.2019 which was generated on 14.08.2019 and the Treasurers Cash Book in SAP and endorsement also made regarding shortage of cash on Sub Office Daily transaction report by him. But due to net '"r,ork problem in SAP at Koilkonda Sub Post Office, the shortage of cash could not be charged due to unclassified payments on the same day. Later on 16.08.2019 at around 9.45 hours, he again visited Koilkonda sub post nffice and verified remaining

¶21

¶22

physical postage stamps/ Revenue stamps/Indian Postal orders and found shortage of postage stamps worth Rs.60/and Revenue stamps worth Rs.369/- and shortage of cash including P/S and R/S at Koilkonda Sub post office as on 16.08.2019 comes to Rs.4,06,953/-. Hence, this total shortage of cash of Rs.4,06,953/- got charged by the petitioner, who was working as SPM, Koilkonda SO. Later the statement of the petitioner was recorded, wherein he stated that he had given a letter dated 13.08.2019 to Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar as he has remitted cash of Rs.2,00,000/- each to Garlapahad branch office and Pagidyal branch office and these amounts shown in SAP daily transaction reports, dated 13.08.20 19. But it is not genuine that he had remitted above said cash to both branch offices as he had no cash of Rs.4,00,000/-. Further the petitioner had stated that he had done mistake and utilized the cash for his personal purpose and he will repay the amount within four days i.e., up to 19.08.2019.

¶23

Learned counsel lor the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person he was faJsely implicated in this case on the fa-lse report given by the de facto complainant. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the report and there was no misappropriate of any amount. He further submits that the even according to the report, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 16.08.2019 and Rs. 1,56,953/- along with penal interest and Normal interest of Rs.600/- on 17.O8.2019

¶24

¶25

with the Post Master, Mahabubnagar Head Office and thus the petitioner has deposited the said amount ol Rs.4,06,953/along with interest. He further submits that the de facto complainant obtained letters from the petitioner under threat of removal from service by misleading him and basing on such letters, the petitioner \vas placed under suspension pending enquiry on 22.08.2019. He further submits that the Branch Post Masters of Garlapahad and Pagidyal branches used to collect the amount from the petitioner from Koilkonda Sub office regularly and on 13.08.2019 as usual, they informed the petitioner that they will receive that amount from the petitioner, but they did not come and receive the amount and as such, the discrepancy in the transaction of Koilkonda SO was noticed. He further submits that the petitioner is the onl1' bread winner of his family and if he is arrested, he ma1. lose his employment. He further submits that the prosecution has completed the investigation by recording the statements of relevant witnesses and as such, there is no question of tampering with the evidence. He further submits that the petitioner is a Government Servant in Indian Postal Department and as such, there is no question of evading the proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish suitable security and abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned Additionat Public Prosecutor representing the State vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶30

Taking into consideration the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and also keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to gra-nt anticipatory bail to the petitioner by imposing some conditions.

¶31

Accordingiy, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/ accused is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.10 of 2O2O of Koilkonda Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,OOO/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer and subj ect to the condition that the petitioner/ accused would cooperate with the investigation Agency and would report before the above Police Station, on every Sunday between 10-00 a.m. and 5-OO p.m. till filing of charge sheet. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶32

SD/- N. PURUSHOTHA REDDY ASSISTANT^R IS R //TRUE COPYi/ //"."\ SECTION FFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

The Judicial First^{ClasslVagistrate(Excise & Prohibition) at} Mahabubnagar

¶35

The Station House^{Officer, Koilkonda PoliceStation, Mahabubnagar} District.

¶36

J. One CC to SRl.^{C DAI/ODAR REDDYAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶37

Two CCs to PUBLIC^{PROSECUTOR, High Courtat Hyderabad} lourl

¶38

One Spare CoPY

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:19/0212020

ORDER

CRLP.No.889 of 2020

BAIL

AL CE( (,
!
?[ its m
lr/;)

¶48

b------

T. Saraiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Saraiah 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

Sardar Rajender Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Macha Naresh Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Aleem Akthar Sheik Vs The State of Telangana

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

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

Medipally Bharath Kumar Reddy, And Another Vs The State of Telangana