Disposed

B. Rama Mohan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2024CRLP/1045/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail petition by an employee accused in a company payroll-fraud case. The court declined to decide on bail but directed Madhapur police to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C procedure per Arnesh Kumar guidelines, as done for other co-accused, and directed cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C procedure per Arnesh Kumar; petitioner directed to cooperate with investigating officer.

B. Rama Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1045 OF 2024

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.1024 of 2023 on the file of the Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional

¶6

Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

¶7

As per the case of the prosecution, the complaint was lodged by the Director of Global Talent in the Prolifics Corporation Private Limited stating that one of their employee, Mr. Kutala Rajesh Kumar, arrayed as accused No.1 who was working as Senior Team Lead left the organization but while reconciliation of accounts and bank statements, the Company found that still his name appeared in the payrolls. The company suspected some foul pay and started verifying the records and found that the said Rajesh Kumar committed criminal breach of trust and defrauded the company by fabricating the records/data and misappropriated funds of the

¶8

Dr.GRR,J Crl.P.No.1045_2024

¶9

¶10

company dishonestly to benefit himself and his family members. The said employee willfully and with an intent to defraud the company falsified the data/records by entering a third party bank account in place of employees who left the organization and defrauded the company to an amount of Rs.1,27,70,433.77.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an amount of Rs.3,19,843/- was found to be transferred to the petitioner’s account. The offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC were only applicable to the petitioner. Both the offences were punishable with imprisonment up to seven (07) years. This Court vide order dated 18.11.2023 in Crl.P.Nos.12302 and 12305 of 2023 directed the Madhapur police, Cyberabad to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C as per the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar¹ scrupulously and requested to pass a similar order.

¶12

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed to allow the petition

¶13

stating that Section 120-B of IPC was also applicable to the petitioner and some amounts were found to be transferred to the petitioner’s account.

¶14

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

¶15

Dr.GRR,J Crl.P.No.1045_2024

¶16

¶17

However, considering that as this Court gave a direction to the

¶18

Madhapur Police to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C to the other accused i.e. accused Nos.3 to 5, 7 and 8 in this crime and as the case of the petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of the other accused, it is considered fit to give a direction to the police, Madhapur, to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (stated supra) scrupulously. However, the petitioner/accused No.6 is directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer by furnishing information and documents as required by the Investigating Officer for completing the investigation.

¶19