Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 471
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Mutlapudi Anjaneyulu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2339 of 2020
Decided On : 08-07-2020
Pillix Law Firm, Advocate
In cases involving serious offenses and the possibility of interference with the investigation, the court may deny anticipatory bail to ensure the integrity of the investigation and the proper administration of justice.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SECTIONS 403, 406, 409, 420, 465 R/W 34 IPC - SUMMARY: The court denied anticipatory bail to a branch manager accused of involvement in a loan scam, citing the gravity of the offense and the possibility of interference with the ongoing investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a branch manager, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a loan scam involving 17 Secured Overdraft Loans sanctioned by the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (KDCC Bank). The complaint alleged irregularities in the sanctioning process, including the failure of the Nodal Officer to conduct proper inspections and the involvement of the petitioner in forwarding loan applications without proper scrutiny.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were allegations against the petitioner and that the investigation so far revealed his involvement. The court also noted that the investigation was pending and that granting anticipatory bail would create the possibility of interference with the investigation.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was involved in the loan scam and whether anticipatory bail should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gravity of the offense and the possibility of interference with the investigation outweighed the petitioner's right to personal liberty. The court also noted that the petitioner had a role in forwarding loan applications without proper scrutiny, which contributed to the irregularities in the sanctioning process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail.
JUDGMENT
Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - The petitioner who is A-2 filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.74 of 2020 on the file of Pedana Police Station, Krishna District, wherein he is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The Deputy General Manager of the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (for short "KDCC Bank") has given a complaint in Pedana Police Station on 10.03.2020 stating that 17 Secured Overdraft Loans were sanctioned at the Pedana Branch of KDCC Bank for a sum of Rs.4.25 crores. During the internal enquiry, it is found that this batch of 17 SOD loans sanctioned from February, 2016 to August, 2016 are full of irregularities from the beginning to the end. It is further stated in the complaint that prior to sanction of loan, the property offered as pledge has to be inspected personally and physically & verified by the AGM, who is designated as Nodal Officer to a few branches including Pedana Branch. Smt.P.Varalamma, AGM is the Nodal Officer having jurisdiction over this Pedana Branch and she did not carry out any inspection / verification in this regard. Instead, the prime suspect (the author of the entire fraud and the major beneficiary of the funds misappropriated) Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM, incharge of NFS (Non-farm Sector) at Head Office has created record as if he carried out the inspection and personal verification of the properties offered as pledge to this batch of loans and not P.Varalamma, AGM, the Nodal Officer concerned.
3. It is further stated in the complaint that the personal inspection and physical verification and valuation of the properties offered as security or pledge has to be carried out at the branch level by the Branch Manager M.Anjayenulu (A-2) and Supervisor K.Sudheer, as they have to accompany the AGM concerned who is the Nodal Officer. Instead, these two officials have shown in the records as having followed all the procedures as they are in league with Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM at the Head Office.
4. The complaint further reveals that the scrutiny of the loan proposals of this batch of 17 SOD loans for Rs.4.25 crores was carried out by Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM, Smt.V.Nirajini, Deputy GM and B.L.Chandra Sekhar, General Manager and the batch of 17 SOD loans for Rs.4.25 crores was sanctioned by the then CEO T.Veerababu, retired in the year 2016, even though none of the loan applications were supported by original of Title Deeds, Legal Opinion, Field Inspection Report etc.
5. It was averred in the complaint that it is learnt that Mukku Ratna Pulakara Rao and Mukku Venkateswaramma have confided that 15 loans sanctioned in August 2016 and to which they stood as surety aggregating to 3.75 crores was utilized by Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM and all the 15 borrowers and his benamis. One Vemula Panduranga Babu, one of the 15 loanees in the schedule, confided that he had not availed any loan and his signature must have been forged by Kagitha Ramakrishna.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Special Public Prosecutor for CID.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither concerned with the loan applications nor with sanctioning of loans. As per the internal circular of the Bank dated 18.01.2014 for any loan amount between Rs.10,00,001/- to Rs.30,00,000/- it is the Nodal Officer concerned to attend for field inspection along with supervisors immediately after preparation of loan application at the Branch for onward transmission of the same to Head Office for sanction. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that loans were sanctioned to the loanees by following the procedure as well as statutory stipulations. Further, the sanctioning authority has to take possession of relevant documents as well as signatures and then only, it has to release amounts to the loanees and the same was done by A-1. Learned counsel further submits t
