Allowed

Vorsu Jagannadham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Nov 2021CRLP/7190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench granted anticipatory bail to five accused persons (Accused Nos. 4, 7, 15, 5, 25) charged under the IPC for alleged municipal fund misappropriation, holding that allegations were record-based and vague, and custodial interrogation was not necessary.

What did the court decide?

Order granted anticipatory bail to all five petitioners/accused persons subject to execution of personal bond of Rupees 25,000 each and appearance before the investigating court.

Vorsu Jagannadham Vs The State of Telangana — Corruption | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

---..

¶2

[31s8 I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE^FIRST DAY^{OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI^DEVI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS:^{7705, 7190,7381,7676&7791OF2021}

¶8

cRr,,P. NO. 7705 0F 2021:

¶9

Behveen:

¶10

Ganji Dhananjaneyulu. S/o. Markondaiah.

¶11

Petitioner/Accused No.4

¶12

AND

¶13

The State ofTelangana, though Station House Officer, il Town P.S., Nalgonda Town,^Nalgonda District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad.

¶14

Respondent/Complainant

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR ASST. PUBLIC PROECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent :

¶16

Petition under Section 438 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 grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 pending investigation and trial in Crime No. 118 of 2015 on the file of P.S. Nalgonda II Town, Nalgonda District;

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7190 OF 2021: Between:

¶18

Vorsu Jagannadham, S/o. Pentaiah

¶19

Petitioner/Accused No.7

¶20

AND

¶21

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, through Station House Officer, Nalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District

¶22

Respondent/Complainant

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent ASST. PUBLIC PROECUTOR

¶25

Petition.under Section 438 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 grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in the event of his anest in FIR No. 1 18 of 201 5 dated 15.05.201 5 on the file ofNalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, in the interest ofjustice;

l Jt

i I l

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7381 OF 2021:

¶30

Betwcen:

¶31

Somagani Shashidhar, S/o. Sathyanarayana,

¶32

¶33

Petitioner/Accused No. 1 5

¶34

AND

¶35

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana at Hyderabad, through Nalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District

¶36

Respondent

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALA

¶38

Counsel for thg.Respondent ASST. PUBLIC PROECUTOR

¶39

Petition under Section 438 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 herein on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR. No. 118 of 2015 Dated 15.05.2015 on the file of SHO Nalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District.

¶40

CRIMINAL PBTITION NO: 7676 OF 2021:

¶41

Between:

¶42

Gajji Shravan Kr.rmar, S/o. Laxmaiah,

¶43

Petitioner/Accused No.5

¶44

AND

¶45

The State ofTelangana, through SHO, Nalgonda, II Town P.S., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Courl of Hvderabad.

¶46

Respondent/Complainant

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner SRI G.L.NARASIMHA RAO

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent ASST. PUBLIC PROECUTOR

¶49

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the^{circumstances steted in the} petition and the grounds fi1ed therein, the High Court may be^pleased to enlarge the^petitioneron bail in the event of arrest in FIR No. 118 of20l5 dated 15-5-2015,^{on the} file ofthe^{PS Town II,} Nalgonda;

¶50

CRIMINAL PETITION NOz 7791 OB 2021t

¶51

Between:

¶52

Smt. Ch. Sravani, Wo. Chamlkar Reddy,

¶53

Petitioner/Accused-25

¶54

A\D

¶55

The State ofTelangana, rep. by its PP, High Court ofTelangana.

¶56

Respondent

¶57

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DAMMALAPATI SRINIVAS, Senior Counsel for SRI P.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent

¶59

ASST. PUBLIC PROECLTT'OR

¶60

¶61

--4

¶62

Petition under Section 438 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 direct the Respondent to release the Petitioner/A-25 on anticipatory bail in the event ofher arrest in Cr.No. 118 of2015 on the file of P.$. Nalgonda Town II;

¶63

The Court made the following;

¶64

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶65

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7705 7190 7381 7676 and779l of202l

¶66

COMMON ORDER:

¶67

Since these five criminal petitions are arising out of the same crime, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶68

These Criminal Petitions, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are hled by A.4, A.7, A.15, A.5 and A.25 respectively, seeking to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 1 1 8 of 201 5 of Nalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406,409,420 and 380 ofthe Indian Penal Code^(IPC).

¶69

Heard Sri K.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/A.4 in Crl.P.No.7705 of 2021, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerlA.T in Crl.P.No.7190 of 2021, Sri V.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/A.15 in Crl.P.No.7381 of 2021, Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, I l-l leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/A.5 Cr1.P.No.7676 of 2021 and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, leamed Senior Counsel on behalf of P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A.25 in Crl.P.No.779l of 2021, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and perused the record.

¶70

It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.02.2015, the Gerleral Audit Department, Hyderabad, visited Municipal Office, for auditing the records for the year 2012-2013 and they verified all the records and found

csD '

crt.P,N8.1r05 and ofl0ll & A.2t,fuh #

¶75

that A.1 misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,68,174l- and ofl0ll misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,39,147l- towards water bills and they issued memo to A.1 and A.2 to repay the said amounts. Thereafter, A.1 and A.2 paid the said amounts to the account of Municipality and both of them were suspended from duties. As per the instructions of D.M.A. & District Collector, on27.04.2015, the Special Audit, Nalgonda, held audit of the records of Nalgonda Municipality for the financial years 20ll-12 to 2014-15. During the audit, they found that all the bill collectors, revenue officer and incharge revenue inspector and IDRO misappropriated an amount of Rs. I .53 crores from 201 1 to 201 5 and property tax demand errors wofth Rs.3,39,5 1,663/-. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.l l8 of 2015 has been registered.

¶76

It is submitted by the respective counsel for A.4 and A.5 that at the time of alleged incident A.4 and A.5 were working as the Junior Accounts Officers in Nalgonda Municipality and much prior to lodging of F.LR., A.4 informed the then Municipal Commissioner on 06.02.2015 regarding missing of certain records in the Department. Basing on which, a^joint search was conducted by the Junior Accounts Officer and Municipal Commissioner and subsequently, on 03.07.2015, the then Municipal Commissioner ordered lor investigation with regard to the missing of records. It has been submitted that none of the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 have been named in the F.I.R. and no allegations of misappropriation of

¶77

any of the funds nor any recovery proceedings have been initiated against them. The names of the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 have been crept up only basing on the statements of the other witnesses and basing on the records.

¶78

¶79

¶80

CSD. J CrLP,No!.7705 oll02l & brr.h

¶81

¶82

¶83

It has been submitted by leamed Counsel for the petitionerlA.T that though the petitioner/A.7 is the Bill Collector in Nalgonda Municipality, his name was not shown in the F.I.R. A departmental enquiry was also conducted. However, nothing was found against the petitioner/A.7 in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner arraigned as A.7 only basing on the statements of the witnesses and basing on the records available with the authorities.

¶84

It has been submitted by leamed Counsel for the petitioner/A.15 that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.l.R. as accused. Even though the petitioner was not araigned as accused till 13.09.2021 and basing on the confessional statement of the other accused, the present petitioner has been arraigned as A. 1 5. No allegations whatsoever have been attributed against the petitioner.

¶85

So far as the petitioner/A.25 is concerned, it has been submitted by the leamed Senior Counsel that the petitioner is the Upper Divisional Revenue Inspector and she has also not been arraigned as accused till 13,09.2021. In the remand report, dated 13.09.2021, the petitioner has been arraigned as A.25. It is submitted that only vague allegations have been made against the petitioner/A.25 in the remand report stating that about thirteen Bill Collectors have misappropriated a sum of Rs.13 lakhs" However, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitionerlA.25 that the petitioner was not Bill Collector at any point of time. For the last three years, the petitioner/A.25 is working in another Municipality.

¶86

It has been submitted by the respective Counsel fbr the petitioners/ 4.4, A.5, A.7, A.l5 and A.25 that all the allegations are bome by records,

t_,.-

csD.,, Cri,P,Nor.7?os ol201r & brt.h

¶91

IS which are with the department only. Though the investigation commenced from the date of registration of the F.I.R., nothing has been found against any of the petitioners till date. It has been specifically submitted by the respective counsel for A. 15 and A.25 that after six years of registering the F.I.R., the names of the petitioners/A.15 and A.25 have been crept up only in the remand reporl, basing on the confessional statement of the other accused, without there being any specific allegations against them. There is no role with regard to the cash transactions of any of the petitionerslA.4, A.5, A.7, A.15 and A.25 have been attributed. It is further subrnitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are discharging their lawful duties without there being any criminal antecedents.

¶92

¶93

Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶94

I 1. A perusal of the material on record would show that the F.I.R. is perlaining to the year 2015 and till date all the revenue records are available with the department, the investigation might have been completed. Since the investigation is pertaining to the records of the department, custodial interrogation of any of the petitioners may not be required. Thus, looking into the nature ofallegations and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.4, A.5, A.7, A.15 and 4.25.

¶95

Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the petitioners/ A.4, A.5, A.7, A.15 and A.25 are granted anticipatory bail sub.iect to the following terms and conditions:

¶96

CSD'J Crl^{P.Nos?''05ollo'l&bil'h}

¶97

¶98

(i) rhe^petitionerc/ ^:I# :::.::;::,::[:::T' a^{period or}

¶99

'iI.i:T:"':T'T" .*;pist'ict"witt'in said^Station

¶100

15^{davsfrom todav ;;;;;such surrender'} 'the House^{Office"n''"it"""the petitionersl L'4' A'5' A'7'} A.i5^{and A'25on uuit on theirexecuting personal bondsfor} twenty^{five'thousandonly)}

¶101

a sum^{of ''"'ooo'- fut} sum^{each'to'his satisfaction'}

¶102

each^{with t*o} 'u'"ti""' "t "'ot

¶103

(2)^{The petitioners/} ";'^{;t'A'7' A'15} as^{and' and A-25 shall rvhen required appearfor} before^{the tt""''U"} ""norities

¶104

thepurpose"t"o:":tt:*.*tlr. o.r, and A.25 shall^not

¶105

t' T:,i.:"ffi'-l i;;-;;;on, intimidate^{or induce the} cooperate^{with the investigating}

¶106

material^{*it"t"tl ;;}

¶107

agency. _ t. ,r 15 a nd^{A.25 shall not}

¶108

(+1fle^{petitioners/ A'4' A'5' A'7' A'i5t} mi^{sus e thet'o t..'l*'"""U ." .r,.t:} ^:i:::::Xt::::;i concertred^{shall take appropriateactlon} of^{the Apex Court to Sushila}

¶109

iaw^{in the} "t'" ''ugment

¶110

Aggarwal^{ol'JJ u'""o"'f" of D'ethi) and otherst'}

¶111

(5) The,ttn'o"tt'1'l''^{o'" o'' o''"} :1i:#: ;T:::lI":' the^{other conditions stipulated in Sectto} Officer^{in investigatingthe}

¶112

co-operate^{'^t} ""igating case.

¶113

¶114

//TRUECOPY//

¶115

trJ,+^sT#S',fli tl-'---'--

¶116

SECTION^OFFICER

¶117

I 2020 scc onllne^{sc 98}

To,

l. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonga, Nalgonda District. 2. The Judiqial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition & Excise Offences), Nalgonda. 3. The Station House Officer, PS Nalgonda II Town, Nalgonda District 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. One CC to Sri Kowuru Pavan Kumar, Advocate^(OPUC) 6. One CC ro Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate:(OPUC) 7. One CC to Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Advocate (OPUC) 8. One CC to Sri G.L.Narsimha Rao, Advocate^(OPUC) 9. One CC to Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 10. One Spare Copy

f I I

HIGH COURT

GSD,J

DATE: l-l 1-2021

ORDER

CRL.P. NOS. 770s,7190,,7381,7676^{&1791OF 2021}

¶132

PETITIONS ALLO\'ED

¶133

l-_
oR -i ttEg
qP ,!1, A{
t
I )
I
0r
li
ttnr@l +(flI
{
icxep +

Vorsu Jagannadham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vorsu Jagannadham 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

Nag Shiva Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Korra Naveen Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Jameel Ahmed, Medak Dist. Vs Naghma Nikhat, Hyd and Ano

Balabommala Venkata Ramana Vs Paleti Nageswara Rao

Smt. M. Sweta Vs The State of Telangana

Prem Kumar Pitla Vs State of Telangana