AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner / A2 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.1 of 2021 dated 08.01.2021 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 406. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 08.01.2021, the Chief Manager of Central Bank of India, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad Branch lodged a report before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad stating that M/s.Sree Fortune Enterprises, a partnership firm represented by one Malladi Bala Tripura Sundari , Managing Partner, and Malladi Radha Ramani, Partner (the petitioner herein - A2) in connivance with each other submitted false and fake documents for availing over-draft facility up to a limit of Rs.2.00 crores and created an equitable mortgage by deposit of sale deed No.10403 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 in the name of the firm, with respect to an open land in collusion with M/s.Soham Consultants represented by Mr.Ram Gopal and later on they found the land in possession of others and that the property was over-valued to Rs.4,29,69,360/- on 29.12.2016, whereas the same was registered for Rs.3,20,67,000/- on 28.12.2016 just a day before the valuation date and caused loss to the bank to an extent of Rs.232.00 lakhs as on 31.10.2020.
Basing on the said report, initially Crime No.1 of 2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. Subsequently, the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were added vide memo dated 24.01.2024.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received 41-A Cr.P.C. notice nine times and submitted her explanation and gave all the details within her knowledge and handed over the documents that were in her possession. During the interaction on 18.01.2024, the Assistant Commissioner of Police gave feelers that he might take the petitioner into custody for further investigation, as A1 was undergoing dialysis since long. As such, the petitioner was apprehending her arrest and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner contending that the petitioner along with A1 and others was involved in cheating the bank to an extent of Rs.232.00 lakhs. The offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. The property which the petitioner and A1 created as equitable mortgage was not available and individual houses and apartments were constructed at the said place and prayed to dismiss the petition.
Perused the record.
As the complaint itself would disclose that the petitioner along with A1 who was none other than her mother-in-law had submitted false / fake and forged documents relating to financial statements i.e. the balance sheet, trading and profit and loss accounts for the years ended on 31.03.2017 and 31.03.2018 and the Charted Accountants who purported to have signed the said documents denied having signed them vide e-mail dated 26.04.2020. The partnership deed of M/s.Sree Fortune Enterprises was dated 23.11.2016, but the Managing Partner had purchased the mortgaged land in the name of the firm on 28.12.2016 by paying a total sale consideration of Rs.3,20,67,000/- only a few days after its establishment raising suspicion as to how the firm could arrange such a huge amount within a short time after its formation and as no mode of payment was mentioned in the sale deed and the PAN card submitted by the Managing Partner along with the loan application was issued on 02.09.2016, just before submission of the loan application and A1 was having another PAN card and the liabilities mentioned in respect of the said PAN card were deliberately concealed by A1 at the time of submission of loan proposal for over-draft for the firm with an intent to cheat the bank. Some of the said loans were written off i.e. Rs.25.00 lakhs on 27.11.2013, Rs.10.00 lakhs loan on 31.10.2013 and Rs.29.00 lakhs loan on 21.07.2010. The activity for which the loan applied for was to meet the working capital requirement for trading of Medical Diagnostic Kits and Instruments etc., and stock of life saving drug, but the firm does not have requisite licence for conducting the said business. The sale consideration of the mortgage land as per the sale deed dated 28.12.2016 was Rs.3,20,67,000/-, but as per the valuation report dated 29.12.2016 given by M/s.Soham Consultant, the fair market value of the said land was shown as Rs.4,29,69.360/-, on the next date of the sale deed itself which would show the collusion between the Managing Partner with the said valuers in obtaining abnormal valuation for the mortgaged plot without any justification. At the instance of the Himayath Nagar Branch of the Bank, M/s.Shilpa Engineers and Valuers gave a report dated 02.08.2020, wherein it was mentioned that apartments and individual houses were under construction in the mortgaged land, the said land had been occupied by different local persons and no one in the said locality supported for measurements in the said land and therefore they could not give any valuation of the mortgaged property.
It was further submitted that from the over-draft account of M/s.Sree Fortune Enterprises with the Himayath Nagar Branch of the Bank, the partners of the borrower misappropriated major portion of the land by transferring funds to its own group firm named M/s.Spectrum Medical Diagnostic Distributors (partnership firm) at the same address at H.No.1-8-434/1/C, Ground Floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad in which the firm, M.Bala Tripura Sundari (A1) herself and her husband were the partners and to the joint account of the Mrs.Bala Tripura Sundari and her husband Mr.M.Seshagiri Rao having the same address at H.No.1-8-434/1/C, Ground Floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Out of the total amount of Rs.187.00 lakhs, an amount of Rs.130.00 lakhs and Rs.57.00 lakhs respectively had been transferred on different dates from the over-draft accounts of M/s.Sree Fortune Enterprises to the own group account of M/s.Spectrum Medical Diagnositc Distributors and to the own joint account of Mr.M.Seshagiri Rao and M.Bala Tripura Sundari with Central Bank of India, Himayath Nagar in which M/s.Spectrum Medical Diagnostic Distributors , M.Seshagiri Rao and M.Bala Tripura Sundari were partners. All the said facts reveal that M.Seshagiri Rao, husband of Mrs.M.Bala Tripura Sundari was involved in defrauding the bank. M.Seshagiri Rao died in December, 2019. M/s.Spectrum Medical Diagnostic Distributors was a very small firm having over-draft limit of Rs.1.15 lakhs against banks FDR and no such huge transaction for supply of diagnostic kits was visible in its account.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the credit facility was availed alone by A1 in the name of M/s.Sree Fortune Enterprises. The financial statements of M/s.Sree Fortune Enterprises for the financial years ending with 31.03.2017 and 31.03.2018 were submitted by A1 to the de-facto complainant. They were never signed by petitioner / A2. The sale purchase transaction of sale deed No.10403 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 would show the involvement of A1 as representative of the vendee i.e. M/s.Sree Fortune Enterprises and A3 as the representative of the vendor without any role of the petitioner / A2. The officials of the de-facto complainant deliberately failed to verify the source of purchase consideration. A1 was alone operating M/s.Sree Fortune Enterprises. The petitioner / A2 was neither privy nor having knowledge about the alleged transaction of funds from the subject over-draft account to the previous firm of A1 and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, wherein it was held that:
“The basic rule is to grant bail except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like. The gravity of the offences involved which is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice as well as the heinousness of the crime should also be taken into account or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of. The petitioner should report himself before the Police Station once every fortnight.”
For granting anticipatory bail, the nature and gravity of the accusation play an important role. The privilege of pre-arrest bail could be granted only in exceptional cases. Anticipatory bail could not be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the Court is convinced of the exceptional circumstances that exist to resort to that extra-ordinary remedy particularly in economic offences, the accused is not entitled for anticipatory bail. As the present case is pertaining to cheating the bank to an extent of Rs.232.00 lakhs by submitting forged and fabricated documents and the petitioner is also a partner of the said firm and the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a matter of trial, it is considered not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any shall stand closed.