Sri. K. Venkateshwara Rao v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER Cr im in al Pet it ion No.1 0 1 0 3 of 2 0 1 7 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/ accused No.3, for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.53 of 2014 on the file of the Atmakur Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C.

2 .

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.3, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState and perused the record. 3 .

The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.3 would submit that there is no misappropriation of funds relating to the works at Atmakur in respect of Item No.8 of the Vigilance Report, dated 20.04.2013. There is no allegation of malfunctioning with regard to Item No.9. There is no payment of amount with regard to construction of PJP-Construction of 450mm dia NP2 Class RC hume pipes culverts. Altogether three F.I.Rs were lodged against the petitioner/ accused No.3.

In two other crimes, the petitioner/ accused No.3 was arrested and obtained regular bail. The allegations in the report lodged with the police in this crime are vague and there is no material to substantiate the same. The petitioner/ accused No.3 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 4 .

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ accused No.3 stating that the

Dr.SA, J CRL.P.No.10103/2017 allegations are grave. There is misappropriation of Government funds and breach of trust. There are clear findings in the Vigilance Report, dated 20.04.2013, with regard to misappropriation of funds and breach of trust. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ accused No.3. 5 .

There is Vigilance Report, dated 20.04.2013, wherein, there is a direction to prosecute the petitioner/ accused No.3 for making excessive payment, without there being execution of actual work. The quality of construction undertaken in his supervision was also poor. The proposal to pay the amount was rejected. The allegations against the petitioner/ accused No.3 are grave and are required to be investigated. The petitioner/ accused No.3, being a responsible officer of the Irrigation & CAD Department, ought to have carried his duties in a more responsible manner. In view of the specific allegations of malfunctioning, breach of trust and misappropriation of funds, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ accused No.3. 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 31st October, 2017 Bvv