Korrapati Venkata Raghuram Kishore v. State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1087 of 2020 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by petitioner/A1, seeking to grant anticipatory bail to him in Cr.No.877 of 2019 on the file of KPHB Colony Police Station, Cyberabad District, registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1 and A2 induced the de-facto complainant to provide job and believing their words, he transferred an amount of Rs.10,30,000/- to the account of accused. However, the accused neither provided any job nor returned the amount to the de-facto complainant thereby cheated him.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submits that the alleged amount was not transferred into the account of the petitioner and the police registered the case without checking his Bank account. He further submits that the petitioner was only an employee in the company of A2, who is Manager of HCL company, and that the petitioner also got issued a legal notice to A2 on 01.06.2019 to repay the amount. He further submits that the petitioner also filed a case against the Manager of HCL Company and four others, who have taken amount from the public. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested and released on bail in another case and again, the

present crime was registered on the same allegations. He further submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he shall abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the relief sought in the petition and submits that an amount of Rs.10,30,000/- was transferred to the account of petitioner and that the petitioner along with A2 has given fake appointment letters to the de-facto complainant and others, thereby cheated the innocent public and therefore, the petitioner/A1 is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6.

As seen from the contents of FIR and remand case diary, the petitioner has been involved in similar type of activities and that there are specific allegations against him that he had colleted huge amounts under the garb of providing employment to the innocent public and also handed over fake appointment letters to them. Thus, in view of the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner/A1 and other facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him and his prayer for anticipatory bail is refused. 7.

Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

8.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand dismissed.

_____________ G. SRI DEVI, J 24th February, 2020 sj