Harinder , Karan v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2720 OF 2017 ORDER:

Petitioner/A1, who along with others is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 420 r/w 34 IPC, filed the instant anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts are that the complainant, who is the Manager of HR & Admin of PMJ Gems and Jewelers Pvt. Ltd., lodged a report on 23-03-2016 stating that their concern is the manufacturer and Retailer of Gold and Diamond Jewellery and the accused are their employees, who are entrusted with the work of gold and precious stones for manufacturing of jewellery articles. It was further alleged that on 21-03-2016 when they went to work shop in order to inspect the same, they noticed that the accused have not reported to work even up to 12 noon, and thereafter, they verified in their residences and found them absconding.

On verification of records, they came to know that on 21-03-2016, gold weighing 6000 grams and 3613 carats of precious and semiprecious stones were given custody to A1 and other accused for making jewelry articles, which was worth about Rs.2,25,00,000/-. On the complaint, the police broke open the locker of the aforesaid accused and found that out of gold weighing about 6000 grams, gold weighing about 802 grams of gross weight and some jewellery including semiprecious stones alone were there. Investigation is pending. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 while denying the allegations would submit that the petitioner is not absconding, but due to matrimonial disputes, he went to his native State Rajasthan and before leaving Hyderabad, he informed the same to his shop authorities and he was unnecessarily implicated in this case.

4.

The F.I.R. and other material would go to show that it is a grievous offence where the gold and precious jewelry were found missing when they were entrusted to A1 and other accused. There is no satisfactory material as of now to show that the petitioner/A1 left for his native place in Rajasthan only after due intimation to his shop authorities. The C.D. file shows that the investigation is still pending. Apart from petitioner, A2 and A4 are still at large as they are in abscondance. A3 was arrested. As the matter stands, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1. 5.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J DATED: 01-06-2017.

Hsd