K.V.Phaniraja Kiran v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION No.10632 OF 2018 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/A.1, for grant of bail in Crime No.178 of 2016 of M.R.Palli Police Station, Tirupati UPD, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 427, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState and perused the record. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner lodged a report against the de facto complainant and others in the year 2015 alleging that they tried to forcibly occupy her house. The petitioner/A.1 did not collect any amount from any person. The allegations made against him are false and ultimately, prayed to allow the petition. 4.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner/A.1 and contended that the petitioner/A.1 collected Rs.2 to 3 lakhs per head from 25 members in the name of Harihara solutions. The allegations are grave and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.

The material placed on record reveals that the petitioner had appointed the de facto complainant's daughter viz., Rekha as Tele Manager in October 2014 in Harihara solutions situated at Tirupathi. The petitioner/A.1 appointed nearly 25 persons as employees in the firm and collected Rs.2 to 3 lakhs each from them. The petitioner alleged to have induced the daughter of the de facto complainant, her husband and also induced others to make them

believe that they would be provided suitable jobs. In total, four witnesses were examined in the instant case. All of them deposed about the alleged collection of huge amounts from them in the name of Harihara solutions to procure suitable employment. The allegations are grave. The release of petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. would hinder the investigation. There is prima facie case against the petitioner/A.1. It is not a fit case to allow the petition. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 26.10.2018 ssp