Dismissed

Mr. Phani Bhushan Upadrashta v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Nov 2021CRLP/7238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal petitions were filed by accused persons seeking anticipatory bail under Sections 438 and 439 Cr.P.C and intervening status under Section 482 Cr.P.C in a cheque fraud and misappropriation case. The High Court court dismissed the petitions, holding that the substantial involvement of the petitioners in misappropriating funds disqualifies them for pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petitions under Sections 438, 439 and 482 Cr.P.C are dismissed.

Mr. Phani Bhushan Upadrashta Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF^NOVEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^NO S: 5359,^{5360 AND7238 0F 2021}

¶7

cRL.P.N0.5359 0F 2021:

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mr. Harsha Upadrashta, S/o Phani Bhushan^{Upadrashta, Age.25 years, Occu. Student} R/o Flat No.402, Gupta Gardens, Ramanthpur,^{Hyderabad, Presently R/o'1 15 East, Sri} Enclave, NRI Colony, Kapra, Secunderabad-500094

¶10

..PETITIONER/ACCUSEO NO.4

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^{High Court of Judicatureat} Hyderabad through P.S. Central Crime Station,^Hyderabad.

¶13

,..RESPONDENT/STATE

¶14

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court may be pleased} to grant anticipatory bail to the^petitioner in FIR No.^{50 of 2021 of P.S.Central Crime} Station, Hyderabad and to Direct Police Respondent^{No.1 to releasethe petitioneron} bail in the event of his arrest during the^{pendencyof inquiry and trial}

¶15

t.A. NO: 1 0F 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Courtmaybe pleased} to permit the Petitioner/ Defacto complainant through^{Counselto advance arguments} and to intervene /implead as Respondent^{No:2 in Crl.M.P535912021beforethe High} Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and otheruvise^{the Petitionersuffers loss and injury}

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 482 ol Ct.P .C^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{may be pleased} to extend the interim order dt: 28-09-2021^{passedin l.A. No.1 of 2021 in Crl,P.No.} 5359 of 2021 until further orders

¶19

cRL.P.NO.5360 0F 2021:

¶20

Between:

¶21

Mrs. Sree Lakshmi Upadrashta, W/o.Phani Bhushan Upadrashta,^{age 46 years, Occ:} Housewife, Fl/o.Flat No.402, Gupta Gardens, Ramanthpur,^{Hyderabad,presently} Fl/o.115, East, Sri Enclave, NRI Colony, Kapra, Secunderabad-500094.

¶22

...PETIIONER/ACCUSED NO.3

¶23

AND

¶24

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt of Judicature at} Hyderabad through P.S., Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.

¶25

...RESPONDENT/STATE

¶26

Petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petltion, the High Court may be pleased}

¶27

¶28

to grant anticipatory b ril to the petitioner in FIR No. 50 of 2021 of P.S, Central Crime .r'Station,^Hyderabad a^{d to Direct Police Respondent} No.1 to rr.'lease the^petitioner /Accused No.3 on bai in the event of her arrest during the penrlenr;y of inquiry and trial

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶30

Petition under I ection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the c rcu nstances stated in the Memorandum c grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitione / defacto complainant through counsel to advance arguments and to intervene / imp :ad as Respondent No.2 in Crl.MP No.5359/202 1 before High Court of Telangana, H lderabad and otherwise the petitioner suffers loss and injury.

¶31

cRL.P.NO.7238 0F 2 t21:

¶32

Between:

¶33

Mr. Phani Bhushan Upr drashta, S/o.Samba Murthy Upadrashta, Aged ii2 years, Occ: LIC Agent, Fl/o.Flat No 102, Gupta Gardens, Ramanthpur, Hyderabad, presently R/o.115 East, Sri Encla re, NRI Colony, Kapra, Secunderabad-S00O94.

¶34

AND

¶35

...PETITIONERyACCUSED NO.2

¶36

The State of Telangane rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through P.S., P.S. Central Crim r Station, Hyderabad.

¶37

...RESPONDENT/STATE

¶38

Petition under S 3ction 438 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum o. Groilnds of Criminal Petition, the High Ccurt^.nay be pleased to grant anticipatory b: il to the petitioner in FIR No. 50 ol 2021 ol P.Si. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad ar I to Direct Police Respondent No.1 to release the petitioner /Accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest during the pendency of inquiry and trial

¶39

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶40

Petition under S:ction 482 of Cr"P.C praying that in the circur.stances stated in the Memorandum o1 grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to permit the petitior er/ defacto complainant implead as Respondent No.2 in Crl. P. No.723812021 b( fore the High Court of Telangana, Hyderabacl and otherwise the petitioner suffers lc ss and injury.

¶41

This Petition c< ming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal I etition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p.SUBASH, Advocate for the Petit oner in all and of the Assistant^public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Responde rt in all

¶42

The Court made the foll ,wing: ORDER

¶43

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI cRIMINAL PETITI ONS No. 5359. 5360 AND 7234 oF 2O2L

¶44

COMMON ORDER:

¶45

.^{These Criminal petitionsunder Section 43g Cr.p.C.are} filed by petitioners - Accused Nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively seeking bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 50 ol 2O2I of P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 403, 406, 465 and 46g IPC.

¶46

The case of prosecution is that on 15.03.2021, a complaint was received from Smt. Varanasi Varalakshmi and Sri Kesari Ramesam stating that they used to make recurring, term and fixed deposits in Post Office at Kacheguda and having learnt about the same, Accused No.2 approached them by introducing himself as agent of Post Office and regularly visited tleir house with Accused No.3 - wile and Accused No.4 - son and introduced them also as Licensed Agents of Kacheguda post Office. It is further alleged that believing the promises and assurances of petitioners, huge amounts were invested by the complainants and various other persons. Subsequently, when complainants were in need of money and decided to close MIS/Time Deposit Accounts that were getting matured, Accused No.2 took original pass books and cheques from them for getting the cheques issued from the Post Office. It is also alleged that on presenting the cheques, they were returned with an endorsement as^{,Insufficient} funds,. When complainants approached the Post Office to verify the deposits, they came to know that all the investments made by them were not credited to their accounts and the entries in the passbook shown

¶47

¶48

by the accused^{rre fabricatedas the Post Office recordstlre not} reflecting the in^{'estments. Further, Accused issuedow'n cheques} as if they were^{issued by Post Master, Kachegudaancl thus,} chiated complai lants^{and others. Initially,FIR No' 90 <tf 2O2l} was registered o^{r the file of Kacheguda Police Stationand later, it} was transferred^{o P.S. ientralCrime Station uide Crime No 50 of} 202r.

¶49

Lear red counsel for^{petitionersMs MonicaPPole} submits that as^{per the complaint, amountswere depositedin the} account of Accr sed^{No.1 and nothing has been allegedagainst} these petitioner; and^{even as per the case ol complerinants,} account^payee c leques^{were issued in favour of AccusedNo' 1lt} is submitted t^y learned^{counsel that petitioners are made} scapegoats and hey^{have been implicatedin this crime falsely lt} is also submitt:d that^{even if all the allegations madein the} complaint are ti ken^{on its facevalue,they do not constitutethe} offences under^{l,ections420, 403, 406, 465 and 468 IPC', hence,} ttre case of^peti ioners^{may be considered for grant of pre-arrest} bail.

¶50

On the other hand,^{learned counsel for de facto-} complainants, S^'i K.^{Balakrishna, submitsthat thereis no dispute} about the fact t lat cheques^{were issued in the name of hccused} No.1 and subs :quent^{investigation revealsthat impersonating} complainants,^{t- Lesepetitionershave opened accountsnot only in} the name of cor tplainants,^{but also of several othersrunnLnginto} Rs.1 crore and odd. lt is^{the contention of learned counselfor} complainants th rt in fact, it^{is represented by all the ar:cusedthat} they are postal lgents and both Accused^{Nos. 2 and 3 were not}

agents right lrom 2012. Suppressing the said fact, they have cheated complainants and withdrawn huge sums of money. Along with the Petition, he filed several documents to show how the money was withdrawn by the accused impersonating the complainants and several innocent people who are also senior citizens and who deposited their money in the banks, hence, petitioners are not entitled for grant of pre_arrest bail.

¶55

5' In repry to the same, learned counser for petitioners submits that absolutery there is no materiar to show that petitioners are not agents from 2072 and it is also not the case of complainants that amounts were given to petitioners but account payee cheques were issued in the name of Accused No. l. She submits that police may be directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41_A Cr.p.C.

¶56

)

¶57

Learned Assistant public prosecutor submits that investigation so far reveals the acts done by these raccused in misappropriating Rs. 1,54,00,000/-. It is submitted that apart from the complainants, there are several innocent people who were cheated by these petitioners. He submits that to unravel the truth, the custody of petitioners may be required. Hence, it is submitted that this is not a case for pre-arrest bail. Learned Assistant public Prosecutor lurther submits that some of the offences alleged against petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of above seven years, as such, they are not entitled for issuance of notice under Section 4l -A Cr.p.C.

¶58

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record.

¶59

¶60

As r ghtly argued by learned counsel for^petidoners, though actual ir volvement of^petitioners is not stated,^{as per the} submissions ma [e by learned counsel for complainants as^{weil as} leamed Assista: Lt Public Prosecutor, it appears, investigation reveals the actir e involvement of petitioners in misappropriating amounts which s running to a tune of Rs. 1,54,00,000// -. Hence, this Court is the view that these are not fit cases for grant of pre-

¶61

arrest bail.

¶62

6 The lriminal Petitions are accordinglv, dismissed.

¶63

Sd/-K.ONESIIV

¶64

ASSISTANIT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'

¶65

'lr\

¶66

SEC'TION OFFICER

¶67

¶68

1 The Xll Additiona Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampaily, Hvderabad.

¶69

2 The Station Hous r Officer, P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.

¶70

3 The lV Additional lhief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶71

4( The Station Hous ' Officer, Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶72

Two CCs to the P rblic Prosecutor (TG), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶73

o. Ore CC to Sri P.S ubash, Advocate (OPUC)

¶74

Two CD Copies

¶75

o One Spare Copy Kj.

¶76

HIGH COURT

¶77

DATEO..2gl1112021

¶78

'i 'o STAl'r": ,N
(
03 Jl'J ?t?2
():)tl(.)t- -..
i. -.: .

¶79

COMMON ORDER

¶80

CRLP.NoS.5359, 5360 rnd 7238 ot²⁰²¹

¶81

DISMISSING THE CRI .Ps.

¶82

Mr. Phani Bhushan Upadrashta v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Phani Bhushan Upadrashta 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

Muvva Venkatrao Vs The State of Telangana

Chuttakula Mahipal Vs The State of Telangana

Chuttakula Mahipal and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Harsha Upadrashta Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Sree Lakshmi Upadrashta Vs The State of Telangana

G. Bala Vikarm Rao and 5 Others Vs Smt. G. Mamatha and another