Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 423
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
Kinjarapu Atchannaidu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2479 of 2020
Decided On : 29-07-2020
Act Referred
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.6
INCOME TAX ACT : S.171(6)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.409, S.420
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.13(1)(a), S.13(1)(c), S.13(1)(d), S.13(2), S.17(a), S.19
Headnote
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - BAIL - MEDICAL CONDITION - GRAVITY OF OFFENCE - SECTION 17-A OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION - DELAY IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY - ECONOMIC OFFENCES - COVID PANDEMIC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sitting MLA and former Minister for Labour & Employment, was arrested in connection with a case registered against him and other accused for alleged irregularities in the issuance of work orders to a private company for providing services to the Insurance Medical Services in the State of A.P. The petitioner challenged the legality of his arrest and sought bail on the grounds of his medical condition, the gravity of the offence, the retrospective application of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, delay in initiating proceedings, and the COVID pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court considered the gravity of the offence, the petitioner's role in the alleged irregularities, the possibility of the investigation being affected if the petitioner was released on bail, and the fact that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail? 2. Whether the petitioner's medical condition warrants the grant of bail? 3. Whether the gravity of the offence is a relevant factor in considering the grant of bail? 4. Whether Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act applies retrospectively? 5. Whether the delay in initiating proceedings is a ground for granting bail? 6. Whether the COVID pandemic is a relevant factor in considering the grant of bail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. 2. In considering an application for bail, the court must consider the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, the likelihood of the accused absconding, the character and behaviour of the accused, the larger interest of the public or the State, and similar other considerations. 3. In cases of economic offences, the gravity of the offence is a relevant factor in considering the grant of bail. 4. Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires prior approval for the investigation of offences committed by public servants, is prospective in operation and does not apply retrospectively. 5. Delay in initiating proceedings is not a ground for granting bail unless it is shown that the delay was caused by the prosecution with the intention of harassing the accused. 6. The COVID pandemic is a relevant factor in considering the grant of bail, but it does not automatically entitle the accused to bail.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for bail.
Venkateswarlu Posani, Advocate
JUDGMENT
M.Venkata Ramana, J. - A2 in Cr.No.4/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 of ACB, CIU, AP, at Vijayawada is the petitioner.
2. The offences alleged against him and other accused are under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1) (a) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act as amended in the year 2018, under Sections 409, 420 and under Section 120B IPC. This is an application filed for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
3. The petitioner is stated to be a sitting MLA representing Tekkali Constituency of Srikakulam District and a recognized leader of Telugu Desam Party. He was elected as MLA for five times from Harischandrapuram and Tekkali Constituencies and was a Cabinet Minister for the state of A.P. in between the years 2014 and 2019. Presently he is stated to be the Deputy Leader of Opposition of A.P.State Legislative Assembly. His brother Sri late Yerram Naidu was a Member of Parliament and was Union Minister for Employment and Rural Development representing Telugu Desam Party. Sri K. Ram Mohan Naidu, Son of Sri late Yerram Naidu, is stated to be the Member of Parliament from Srikakulam Parliament Constituency and Smt. Adireddy Bhavani, daughter of eldest brother of the petitioner, is stated to be a Member of Legislative Assembly, representing Rajahmundry City Constituency of East Godavari District.
4. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner and other accused in this case, in brief, is that the petitioner, as then Minister for Labour & Employment, Factories, Youth & Sports Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of A.P., interfered in the activities of the Insurance Medical Services in the State of A.P., which is responsible for running ESI facilities in the State, by issuing letters during October and November 2016 to A1, who was then Director, Insurance Medical Services, ordering and directing him to issue work order to M/s. Tele Health Services Private Limited, Hyderabad, which is represented by A3 as its Director for services relating to Call Center, Toll-free Services, ECG Services and Patient Case Management System/ Software services.
5. In this process, it is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner had brought pressure on A1 to issue work order to M/s. Tele Health Services Private Limited, Hyderabad in spite of resistance by A1 that it would lead to financial loss affecting Government exchequer. It is also the case of the prosecution that by this process, the petitioner made M/s. Tele Health Services Private Limited, Hyderabad to have wrongful gain, causing wrongful loss to the Government exchequer, wilfully bypassing the relevant rules and regulations in managing the Government and public funds. It is also the case of the prosecution that in a deep rooted criminal conspiracy, the petitioner and other accused in tandem made the State to suffer huge loss, since payments were released to M/s. Tele Health Services under different Heads in sums of Rs.4,15,03,564/- and Rs.3,80,66,160. Thus, in all, the petitioner and other accused are responsible for allowing M/s. Tele Health Services Private Limited to receive Rs.7,95,69,685/-, by abusing their official position, involving corrupt and illegal means, dishonestly and fraudulently leading to misappropriation of public and Government funds.
6. Director, FAC, Insurance Medical Services, Vijayawada, presented a complaint in respect of these instances furnishing necessary details. A authorization was given to ACB by Memo dated 10.06.2020 through Principal Secretary to Government, Labour, Factories, boilers & IMS (IMS&VIG) Department. Thereupon, to investigate into these affairs, a case was registered for the offences stated above, by CIU unit of ACB, Vijayawada through its DSP at 11.00 p.m. on 10.06.2020. The matter is stated to be under investigation.
7. The petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 12.06.2020 at 7.20 a.m. at his residence in Nimmada village, Kotabommali Mandal of Srikakulam
