Pattan Lal Ahmad Khan v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No. 3 7 0 4 OF 2 0 1 8 ORDER:

This petition is filed, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused No. 10 in Crime No. 171 of 2013 of Kanagal Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 418 and 120-B read with Sections 34 of IPC and 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., Sections 4 and 5 read with Sections 2 (c) and 3 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978, Section 45 of RBI Act and Sections 3 and 5 of Protection of Depositors Financial Establishment Rules, 1999. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor (T.S.).

3.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private Limited, represented by its Chairman A.V.Rama Rao, was promoting illegal money circulation scheme and cheating the public in the name of real estate business as well as collecting unauthorized deposits from the public but failed to repay the deposits to the public.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only an agent of the company and he did commit no offence much less the above offences and that entire investigation is completed in this case.

5.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner committed a grave economic offence

and the company embezzled to a tune of rupees six thousand crores from thousands of subscribers and that when the petitioner was an agent, he is also equally responsible for the offences committed by the company.

6.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was an agent of the company and promoting illegal money circulation scheme and cheating the public in the name of real estate business as well as collecting unauthorized deposits from the public but failed to repay the deposits. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is no way concerned with the non-payment of the deposits.

Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act'), says where any financial establishment defaults in the return of the deposit either in cash or kind or defaults in the payment of interest on the deposit as agreed upon, every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment including the Promoter, Manager or Member of the financial establishment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to then years and with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh and such financial establishment shall also be liable for fine which may extend to rupees five lakhs.

From Section 5 of the Act, it is clear that every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment including the Promoter, Manager or Member of the financial establishment shall be punished.

the company, is also equally responsible for the fraud committed by the company and he cannot escape from the liability. 7.

The allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during investigation prima facie establish that the petitioner, who was an agent of the company, collected unauthorized deposits from the public and committed default in repayment of the same. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim pre-arrest bail which is purely discretionary in nature. Grant of pre-arrest bail is not a matter of routine and it is a matter of exception. Unless the petitioner is able to satisfy the Court that there are exceptional circumstances, the Court cannot grant prearrest bail. The Apex Court in Siddh ar am Sat lin gappa Mh et r e Vs. St at e of Mahar ash t r a 1 provides the following factors and parameters that are needed to be taken for consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:

"(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the facts as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in case of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The case in which the accused is implicated with the help of Section 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, the Court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

1 2010 (12) TMI 1085 SC

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

In the case on hand, the company collected more than Rs.6,000 crores form thousands of subscribers but failed to repay the same, as a result of which several depositors committed suicide and some of the families are totally ruined. Having considered the above factors and parameters and applying to the present facts of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to seek pre-arrest bail in view of the gravity of the offence.

8.

The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed in consequence.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

16-04-2018.

JSK