← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/8833/2017dismissed

N.Rajender Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

2017-10-23T.Sunil Chowdary2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8833 of 2017 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed, by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.551 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station Cyberabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 of Protection of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are ex facie taken to be true and correct, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner collected nearly Rs.1,60,00,000/- from different persons in the name of private chit and failed to repay the same. He further submitted that investigation is in progress and hence this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his family members run a private chit without any licence and collected Rs.1,60,00,000/- from the members of the chit and failed to repay the amounts. The gist of the allegations made in the complaint is that the petitioner cheated the public.

The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2644 of 2017 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and the same was dismissed on 12.07.2017. A perusal of the record prima facie reveals that the petitioner run a private chit without any licence and collected huge amounts from the members of the chit and failed to repay the same. A perusal of the record reveals the role played by the petitioner in the commission of the offences.

Taking into consideration the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 23rd October, 2017 Kvsn