ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D. Ramesh, J.
Vikas Vinayak Khanvelkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 7265, 7339 of 2021 and 31 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2022
BAIL - Crl.P.C. - SECTIONS 437 AND 439 - OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120-B, 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 R/W 34 & 37 IPC AND SECTIONS 13(2) R/W 13(1)(C) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - HELD, PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO BAIL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were arrested in connection with Crime No.29/2021 on the file of Crime Investigation Department (CID), Economic Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri, Guntur District, wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 r/w 34 & 37 IPC and sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no specific allegations against the petitioners either in the F.I.R or in the remand report and there is no basis in the said documents the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. Even there are no indications of personal involvement of beneficiaries in the said offences by the petitioners.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial where called upon. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, the basic principle of our criminal justice system is bail, not jail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and directed that the petitioners be released on bail on their executing self bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the III Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada.
JUDGMENT
1. The crime number and the issue involved in all the three criminal petitions are one and the same and hence all the three criminal petitions are being disposed of with a common order.
Crl.P.No.7265 of 2021
This petition is filed under Section 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A10 in connection with Crime No.29/2021 on the file of Crime Investigation Department (CID), Economic Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri, Guntur District, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 r/w 34 & 37 IPC and sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Heard Sri V.Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.Venkata Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner/A10.
4. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the complaint dated 07.9.2021 addressed by the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation, Andhra Pradesh (for short APSSDC) to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Andhra Pradesh at Mangalagiri, the present crime was registered by the respondent police on 09.12.2021. In the said written complaint, it was alleged that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.47 (HE) (EC.A2) Department dated 13.12.2014 incorporating the APSSDC. The object of the project is to impart hi-end technology to the trainers. SIEMENS offers training program in collaboration with various State Governments. In the negotiations, the State Government has agreed to establish SIEMENS centers of excellence, technical skill development institutions and skill development centers. Six such clusters have been formed at the inception at cost of Rs.546,84,18,908/- with SIEMENS and Design Tech providing a grant-in-aid of Rs.491,84,18,908/- i.e. 90% and a Government share thereof is 10% i.e. Rs.55crores. A memorandum of agreement (for short MOA) has been entered into between APSSDC on one hand and SIEMENS on the other. SIEMENS is a combination of M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software (India) private limited and M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited.
5. A tax investigation by the Additional Director General, GST, Intelligence, Pune in respect of the claims of CENVAT credited by M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited and M/s Skillar enterprises India private limited led to huge financial scam involving crores of rupees by M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software India Private Limited and M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited. As per the MOA, the Design Tech has to provide training software development including various sub modules designed for high end software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. As per the investigation conducted by the Additional DGGI, Pune concluded that both the service provider and service receiver had taken contradictory stands regarding the nature of service regarding the nature of services. An in-depth scrutiny into the records by the ADGGI revealed that training software development including various sub-modules shown as supplied by Skillar to design tech were purchased by Skillar from...
i) M/s Allied Computers International (Asia) Ltd., Mumbai (in short M/s.ACI).
ii) M/s. Patrick Info services private limited (M/s I.T.Smith solutions private limited).
iii) M/s. Inweb Info services Private limited all based at New Delhi.
iv) M/s Arihanth Traders, New Delhi.
v) M/s G.A.Sales Private Limited, New Delhi.
The allegations are that all the above companies are shell/defunct companies and they were issuing invoices without providing any services and further alleged that all these companies have formed into a cartel to siphon the public funds running into crores of rupees. Basing on the said report, the Managing Director of APSSDC has lodged a report with CID through his written complaint dated 07.9.2021.
6. Basing on the complaint, the respondents have re
object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial where called ....
Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind as to why applicant has been granted or denied privilege of bail.
It is duty of Magistrate while remanding accused to judicial custody to verify contents of allegations and also to see whether allegations would make out offences alleged against accused.
Deliberate concealment of material facts can lead to the rejection of an application for Transit Anticipatory Bail.
Prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is only required for offenses relating to public officials' duties; misconduct that constitutes a crime does not benefit from this....
Point of law : Fact as to whether the petitioner can be convicted for an offence under Section 467 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC will be decided only at the time of trial, after evidence is le....
Bail can be granted under stringent conditions, even for serious economic offenses, once investigations are complete and there's no necessity for further custody.
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.