Bollupalli Madhavilatha v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE TH]RTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TIVO THOUSAND AND TWENry :PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T,VINOD KUMAR CRL.P. NOs: 6840 AND 7O2O OF 2O2O CRLP.No.684O of 202O Between :

Bollupalli lviadhavilatha S/o. Bollupalli Srinivasulu Petitio n e r/Accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana through P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad .....Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petition e r/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.141 of 2020 on the file of P.S. C.C.S, Hyderabad.

LA. No, L oi 2O2O Petition under Section 301 of Cr.P.C., R/w 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the present intervention petition filed by the de-facto complainant to intervene in the Criminal Petition No. 6840 of 2020 before the Hon'ble High Court filed by the Accused in the F.LR. No. 141 of 2020 at the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, dismlss the Bail Petltion flled by the Accused and deny bail to her The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petltion and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Resu Mahender Reddy representing Sri K Pradeep Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent. CRLP.No.7O2O of 2O2O Between :

Vankamamidi Santosh Kumar, S/o Gopa la krishna 14 u rthy ..... Petitio n erlAccu sed No.2 AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor for the state of through P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. .....Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused 42 on bail in Crime No.74712O20 on the file P.S.C.C.S, Hyderabad.

The petition comlng on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy representing Smt. N.Anula, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the Court made the following .

ORDER

I

THE H()N'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR CRIMINA.L PETITION Nos.684O AND 7O2O of 2O2O r COMMON ORDER:

These criminal petitions under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed by the petitioners/ arrayed as accused no.1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2) fc,r grant of regular bail ir Crime No.141 of 2O2O dated 01.10.2020 on the file of CCS police station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403,409, 42O read with 34 IPC. 2.

Heard Sri Resu Mahender Reddy and Sri. T. Pradyumna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 respectively, lear:red Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State and Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of tlne defacto-complainant and pertrsed the record.

3.

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the criminal petition is taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing in the virtual Court today, i.e.31.12.2O2O. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a perusal of the ccmplaint lodged by the defacto-complainant dated O6.Oa.2O2O, on the basis of which the present complaint bas been registered by the respondent authority on 01.10.2020 would reveal that it is based on the information stated to have been given by the accused No.2 i.e., the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7020 of 2O2O, the deJ,tcto-cornplainant became aware of financial irregularities thzrt are taking place in tlne defacfo-complainant company, resulling in huge amount of money to the tune of

Rs. 15 crore being swindled away from the account of the company by way of iliegal means. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that, though it is being claimed that the accused No.2 is stated to have approached the defacto-complainant and brought to his notice about the financial irregularity in February, 2O2O, the complaint came to be lodged only in August, 2020. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit even before lodging of the complaint relating to the alleged financial irregularity with the respondent authority, the petitioners were issued with show cause notices calling for explanation in the month of June, to which the petitioners had given their reply, would only go to show that the defacto-complainant in order to get over the contractual terms of employment governing separation, wanted the petitioners leave the service on their own, so that the defacto-complainant could get over the statutory requirement for payment of compensation etc., and had made false allegations relating to financial irregularities against the petitioners.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, though it is claimed that the defacto-complainant was made aware of the financial irregularities which are alleged to have been done at the behest of the petitioner/ accused No.1 in Criminal Petition No.6840 of 2O2O in February, 2O2O, rhe petitioner continued to be the authorized signatory in respect of bank transactions till about 17.O7.2O2O, which is unfathomable if only the alleged claim is correct.

6.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner / Accused No. 1, would further submit that the details as stated in the complaint lodged would also go to show that the monies from the company's account I

have been transferred into the accounts of the Accused No s 2, 3, 4 and 5, who it is being claimed to have conlessed of rt:ceipt of money from the company's account, but, the same having been withdrawn in cash and passed on to petitioner/ accused No.1 in the crime. It is thus, submitted that based on the confessional statement given by the accused, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 6840 of 2O2O cannot be implicated in the crime as Accused No. 1.

7.

Learned Couosel would also submit that the petitioners were taken into judicial custody on 26.11.2O2O and since, for more than 40 days, the pretitioners are in judicial custody. It is also submitted that based on the petition moved by the prosecution, the custody of --he accused No.l was given to the investigatirrg authority for a day on lO.l2.2O2O. Thereafter, no application seeking for extension or seeking for further time lor hand ing over the custody of arccused No. 1 was filed, which only goes to sho\r' that the investigating agency did not require custody of the petitioner/A- I ilny further for the purpose of conducting investigation. It is aiso submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no benefit would be derived by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody.

On the other hand, if the petitioners are granted bail and are directed to appear before the authorities and cooperate rvith the investigation, the investigation into the above case registered can be progressed with, so that the authorities r,r,ou1d be able to complete the investigation arrd file a final report/ charge sheet before the concerned Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.1 would also further submit that during the period 2015-16 till about 2018-19, s'hen rhe ' ..

,.

=5

\ alleged financial misappropriation is stated to have taken place, the petitioner was only a second signatory along with another who was the head of the company at the relevant point of time and the said person has not been made as an accused, but the petitioner is only shown as an accused, which only goes to show that the endeavor of th,e defacto complainant to give a criminal color what is otherwise a purely an employment issue, to ensure the petitioners walk out on their own as stated above. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, since, these are financial transactions relating to transfer of monies from the accounts of the company through banking channels, the entire transactions can be traced and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in judicial custody.

It is also submitted that, since the investigating authority has examined the witnesses, namely the officials of the company and recorded their statements and the information being available with the company, the petitioners would not have any access to deal or tamper with the same. Finally, the learned counsel would submit that during the pendency of the present criminal petition, the Accused No.3 was granted bail on 24 .12.2O2O by the concerned Magistrate court. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks for grant of bail to the petitioners and would also submit that the petitioners would abide by any conditions as may be imposed by this Court for considering grant of bail.

8.

Opposing the grant of bail, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners are involved in large scale financial irregularity to the tune of over ten crores resulting rn the defacto-complainant suffering financial loss. But for the

information given by the accused No.2, the same would oot have seen the light of the day. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that based on the complaint made by the defacto-complainant, the respondent authority had registered the above crime and commenced investigation thereinto. It is also stated that in the process of investigation, the respondent authority had examined seven witnesses as of today along with trvo punch witnesses. It is also stated that the investigation is in advanced stage inasmuch as the investigating agency is required to collect information as to the manner and method of flovy of funds from the accounts of the accused Nos.2,3,4 and 5 to accused No.1 and how the said funds were used by the accused.

Learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor would lurther submit that, though the trial Court had granted custody of the petitioner/ accused No. I in Criminal Petition No.6840 of 2O2O, for a day, for investigation on lO .12.2O2O , nc, information could be elicited from the petitioner/ accused No.1 as the petitioner / accused No. I did not cooperate with the investigation and, as such the respondent authority did not seek for further extension of the police custody of the petitioner/ accused No. 1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, the petitioner may resort to w,iping out the evidences relating to illegal transactions undertaken by them, thereby hampering the process of investigation.

, 9.

Sri. Tarun G. Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto-complainant would submit that it is lor this Court to consider the bail application having regard to the prima facie case to be established by the petitioner. However, he would submit that serious prejudice would be caused to the defacto-complainant, if the petitioners are granted bail, as the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 have caused loss to the company to the extent of more than 10 crores. Learned Counsel would further submit that, though initially information was given by the accused No.

2 in February, 2O2O, to fne defacto-complainant, since, the authorities did not resort to taking immediate action against the petitioners merely based on the information, without the defactocomplainant company gathering necessary basic information or documents to show the involvement of petitioners in the misappropriation being complained of. It is only for the above said reason, no action was taken either to withdraw the cheque signing power of the accused No. 1 in the above crime or the matter being complained to the respondent investigation agency.

Learned Counsei would further submit that it is upon completion of the internal investigation, the petitioners were issued show cause notice and after receiving their reply and having found explanation given being not satisfactory, the defacto-complainant company approached the investigating authority and lodged the complaint on 06.08.2020. Learned Counsel would further submit that even if this Court is inclined to consider grant bail to the petitioners, this court may consider putting the petitioners on terms, as this court may consider deem fit in the facts of the case and also by taking note of the fact that the petitioners are a flight risk case.

10. Having regard to the submissions made as above, it is to be / seen that, though tLre defacto-complainant was made aware of the financial irregularities and misappropriation being resorted to by the accused No. t in February, 2O2O, no immediate action is taken to withdraw the various powers vested in petitioner / accused No.1 to deal with companies financial matters was taken, which should have been the instant reaction of tt,e defocto-complainanr and on the other hand the petitioner/accused No.l was allowed to be at the helm of frnancial affairs of the company till the time of being issued with a show cause notice. It is also to be seen that, though the complaint rvas given on 06.08.2020 for the reasons best known, the same was not registered for about nearly two months and was only registered on 01.10.

2020 nor the defactocomplainant followed up with the authorities for registration of crime, is another factor which need to be taken note of. Similarly, since, the ofience for which the petitioners are charged with relating to siphoning of funds from the companies account by way of transactions through banking channels, traces of such transactions cannot be erased so easily, so as to hamper the progress of investigation by the respondent authority. In view of the weight of all the above aspects of the matter, and the legal Doctrine laid dourn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India :n State of RaJasthan a.

an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad; (ii) The petitioner (A. 1) in Criminal Petition No.6840 of 2020 shall appear before the investigating authority on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; while the petitioner (A.2) in Criminal Petition No.7020 of 2O2O shall appear before the investigating authorit5z on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m,, till the competition of investigation and filing of charge sheet before the concerned Magistrate court and shall cooperate with the investigating authority and produce necessary / information as may be required for expeditious investigation into the crime;

(iii) The petitioners shall deposit their passport into the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad;

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without obtaining prior permission from the Court concerned;

(") The petitioners after being enlarged on bail, shall not contact with any of the witnesses or resort to influence or lntimidate the witnesses and also shall not try to remove or erase the evidence; and

("i) II the petitioners/A- 1 and A-2 fail to comply with any of the conditions stipuiated hereinabove, liberty granted to them shall automatically stand cancelled and the respondent petitioners/A-l and A-2 sha1l be tzrken into custody forthwith by following clue process ol law.

1 1. Subject to the above, both the criminal petitions tire allowed' Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this firal order.

il SI),'- .K.SHYLESHI .\SlilSl \\'l' ttll(il:iTlt'rll'

V4/ \ //TRUE COPY// ]ECTION OFFICER To

1. The XII Addl. Chief lYetropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad

2. The Superintendent, Chanchalguda Jail, Hyderabad

3. The Superintendent, Chanchalguda lail for Women, Hyderabad

4. The Station'louse Officer, Police Station Central Crime Station, Hyderabad

5. One CC to S.l K Pradeep Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

6. One CC to STt N Anula Advocate [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor', High Court for the State of Telangana(CUT)

8. One spare copy.

\ i ;,

/ HIGH COURT TVK,J DATED: 3L.[2.2O2O ORDER:

CRLP. NOs: 6840 & 7O2O of 2O2O ,-$$ BAIL L i.