Smt. Gollapudi Rajitha v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7816 of 2017 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.153 of 2016 on the file of the Station House Officer, Pitlam Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

2.

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. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted that the allegations made in the complaint ex facie constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. 3.

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant collected an amount of Rs.6,20,850/- from different customers and deposited the same in the account of LIC and handed over the receipts to the petitioner and another. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other accused misappropriated the entire amount of Rs.6,20,850/-, which belongs to the depositors/customers.

4.

A perusal of the record prima facie reveals that the petitioner along with other accused misappropriated to a tune of Rs.6,20,850/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Accused No.2 was arrested and released on bail. Merely because A2 was released on regular bail that itself is not a valid ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A1. A perusal of the record further reveals that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.78 of 2016 on the file of the Station House Officer, Kotagiri Police Station, registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 417 IPC. 5.

Taking into consideration the nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-A1. 6.

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J 13th September, 2017 Rns