AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.58 of 2025 of Narayanavanam Police Station, Tirupati District, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 344 of B.N.S.
Case of the prosecution is that the complainant is working as a Postal Inspector in Puttur Sub-Division and on 07.09.2024, he received a complaint from one Ananda Rao who is working as Post Master in Narayanavanam that the accused who is Branch Post Master of Aranyam Kandriga was absent from duty by retaining excess cash. On 09.09.2024, the complainant inspected the branch office and found that against a closing balance of Rs.98,144/-, only Rs.460/- was available. A panchanama was conducted in the presence of witnesses and he admitted in writing that he used the amount of Rs.97,684/- for his personal expenses. He subsequently paid the amount and he was removed from service on 02.05.2025.
Sri N. Bharat Simha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the amount misappropriated by the petitioner was admittedly paid back to the department and the same was accepted. Despite the same, criminal action is sought to be taken against the petitioner by the de facto complainant by raising complaint on 11.09.2025. Hence, the petitioner prays to enlarge him on pre-arrest bail.
Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are entirely different and they are at liberty to prosecute upon the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant.
Perused the record.
Though there is force in the statement made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are different and stand on different footing, the petitioner has already paid the amount to the department and he was terminated from service by the department. Upon the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the petitioner/accused is apprehending arrest.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner would cooperate with the investigation if so conducted/initiated against the petitioner and that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Nagula Gunta, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District. Since balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner, this Court feels it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:
i. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;
ii. The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;
iii. The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;
iv. The State is at liberty to take appropriate action as contemplated in the event the petitioner/accused does not cooperate with the enquiry/investigation.