AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J
1) The Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A.3 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.104 of 2022 of Bangarupalem Police Station, Bangarupalem.
2) A case has been registered against the petitioner along with others for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 R/w 34 of I.P.C.
3) The facts of the case are that one A. Prakash Babu, gold appraiser in Chittoor Main Branch, was called for quarterly re-appraisal of gold loans as per bank extant guidelines. On re-appraisal of the gold pledged in gold loans sanctioned during quarter ended March, 2022, it was found that gold in gold loans availed by some borrowers is spurious. As there is suspicion with regard to the earlier gold loans also, all the gold loans as on 12.05.2022 are reappraised and found that gold pledged in 25 gold loans availed by 5 borrowers, is spurious. On enquiry, it is alleged that Accused No.1, who is working as regular gold appraiser in Gollapalli branch, confessed that he himself has kept spurious gold ornaments and got sanctioned loans in the name of 5 borrowers. He managed to take the loan amount from those 5 borrowers by way of cash and UPI transfer to his personal account in Indian Bank. He also confessed that he along with the petitioner and others have reappraised the gold loans in the last year. Basing on the said accusation, the name of the petitioner was implicated in the said crime.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the confessional statement of co-accused, there is other material to connect the petitioner to the crime.
5) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor states that in view of the confessional statement made by co-accused, the petitioner was implicated and he was interrogated and his confessional statement was obtained and further the police has to verify whether any gold ornaments are kept with the petitioner herein.
6) Admittedly, the Accused No.1 has made confession to the extent that he himself has kept spurious gold ornaments and got sanctioned loans in the name of 5 borrowers. He also confessed to the extent that he managed to take the loan amount from those 5 borrowers by way of cash and UPI transfer to his personal account to Indian Bank. Basing on the confessional statement of co-accused, the petitioner herein was implicated. But, prima facie there is no other material to connect the petitioner to the crime.
7) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8) Accordingly, in the event of his arrest in the above crime, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials and also on condition that the petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required and that he shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.
9) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.