Shaik Khadar Hussain vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Ravi Cheemalapati, J

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.37 of 2022 of Nandalur Police Station, YSR Kadapa District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 & 420 IPC.

The case of the prosecution in precise is that basing on the report lodged by the Branch Manager, SBI, Nandalur stating that the his predecessor - Shaik Khaddar Hussain misused the bank funds by way of raising transfer entries by himself on his own without the signatures of the borrowers and debited an amount of nearly Rs.27.50 lakhs from self help groups and other accounts and credited huge amount in favour of Choudary Fuels and small amounts in his relatives accounts, the present crime has been registered.

Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the petition, has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the report lodged by the de facto complainant wherein it is clearly stated that – ‘on suspect of branch officials, the said branch manager re-imbursed the same to the previously debited accounts by depositing the cash on his own and paid the entire amount as per the branch instructions’ and also contended that disciplinary action has already been initiated against the petitioner by the authorities. He would further contend that since the entire record is available with the bank and the investigation authorities, the question of tampering of evidence by the petitioner does not arise and the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation and as such prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail.

On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that though the amount was remitted back, the petitioner cannot be squat free and as Section 409 of IPC is registered against the petitioner, pre–arrest bail cannot be considered as the imprisonment is more than 10 years. Merely because he has paid the amount, no indulgence can be shown for consideration of pre-arrest bail. Presence of the petitioner is very much required for investigation. In the event pre-arrest bail is considered, he may not co-operate for investigation. He placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti [(2001) 2 SCC 574].

There is no doubt that the public money is involved. The decision relied on by learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the only apprehension of the prosecution, is that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and his presence is very much required for investigation. As the records, which are required to be looked into are very much available with the bank and the investigation authorities, and more so when the petitioner is already suspended as such the records will not be in his hands so he cannot tamper the record. As his presence is required for investigation the apprehension of the prosecution is taken due not of. Therefore, this Court is inclined to consider granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, however by taking into consideration the apprehension of the prosecution, on the following conditions.

i) The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.37 of 2022 of Nandalur Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, on condition of executing a self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of Nandalur Police Station, YSR Kadapa District.

ii) On such release, petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Nandalur Police Station, thrice in a week i.e., Monday, Thursday and Sunday between 10:00 AM and 12:00 Noon till filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate with the investigation and he shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer whenever required;

iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainants or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.