AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subba Reddy Satti, J
This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), has been filed by the petitioner/A.30, praying to enlarge him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in C.C.No.8 of 2023 in Crime No.131 of 2022 of Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the petitioner herein and others, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and Section 38 of A.P. MACS Act, 1995.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that District Co-operative Officer, Kakinada lodged a report stating that the society A.1 and its management collected deposits from approximately 19,000 members, totaling around Rs.457.48 crores. They lured cash from the deposits with dishonest intention and fraudulent manner with their deceitful words, promising higher interest rates i.e., at 13.7% P.A. upon maturity and failed to pay the amount on maturity. The District co-operative officer conducted preliminary enquiry and found several irregularities in the functioning of the society and they embezzled the deposited amount and absconded.
Heard Sri M.Nagha Raghu, learned counsel representing Smt.M.V.Santha Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Y.L.Siva Kalapana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel – cum –Special Public Prosecutor for CID.
Perused the record.
As seen from the charge sheet, the petitioner/A.30 was shown as absconding.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. The charge sheet was numbered as C.C.No.8 of 2023 on the file of Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. He would also submit that the petitioner is innocent. If the petitioner commits default in repaying the loan amount, the authorities have to follow the procedure contemplated under the A.P.co-operative societies Act and the Rules made there under and he prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that since the petitioner absconded, Non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner/A.30. Further submitted that petitioner did not cooperate with the investigating agency and opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. She further placed reliance on the decision of Honourable Aped Court reported in Sanatan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another SLP (Criminal) No.7358 of 2021, wherein it is observed as follows :
“… From the aforesaid, it is found that there is prima facie case found against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and even the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is found to be absconding. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating with the investigating agency and absconding…”
During the course of hearing, learned special PP would submit that the Non-bailable warrant issued against accused No.22 in C.C.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in the similar set of facts of the case, was recalled. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner may be permitted to move application to recall the warrant.
In view of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the matter, the above bail application is closed giving liberty to petitioner/accused 30 to approach the trial Court and move an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. to recall warrant.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is closed.