Madan Jain Sisodia v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER Cr im in al Pet it ion No.1 7 4 1 of 2 0 1 9 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/ A.1, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.1085 of 2018 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC.

2 .

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ A.1, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

3 .

The learned counsel for the petitioner/ A.1 would submit that this petitioner/ A.1 is falsely implicated in this case, having issued legal notice etc. All the allegations made in the First Information Report are false and ultimately prayed to allow the application. 4 .

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ A.1. 5 .

As per the prosecution case, on 13.11.2018, the subject report was lodged by the de-facto complainant with the police stating that this petitioner/ A.1, his father (A.2) and his associate (A.3) visited her jewellery shop on many occasions in order to do business with the de-facto complainant, assuring that they were in jewellery business for the last few years and had a lot of local clientele. Thereafter, the petitioner/ A.1, assuring that he would sell the jewellery to his clients and return the sale proceeds to the

de-facto complainant, took diamond jewellery etc.

worth Rs.81,02,382/ - on 29.01.2018. Thereafter, neither the jewellery said to have been sold nor payment was made as agreed in between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner/ A.1. There is also record to show that the petitioner/ A.1 got all his telephone connections disconnected and avoided communication with the defacto complainant. Having waited for some time, the de-facto complainant lodged the subject report with the police. There is entrustment of the jewellery to the petitioner/ A.1 and thereafter, evasion by the petitioner/ A.1. The allegations are specific and grave. The disputed gold and diamond jewellery are not yet recovered. Custodial investigation is necessary. It is not a fit case to allow this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 6 .

Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 04th April, 2019 Bvv