IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
Y. Vikranth Reddy, S/o. Y.V. Subba Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its SHO, CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 8912 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 506, 384, 420, 109, 467, 120B read with 34 - Anticipatory bail sought in connection with allegations of conspiracy and fraud involving undervalued share transfers - Petitioner alleged to have threatened defacto complainant, leading to coerced share sales. (Paras 1-3, 10-24)
(B) Anticipatory bail - Principles governing grant - The court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of fleeing from justice - Delay in lodging the report raises doubts about the accusations. (Paras 4, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of conspiracy and fraud, allegedly threatened the defacto complainant to transfer shares at undervalued prices. The defacto complainant claims the shares were worth significantly more than the transaction price.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed anticipatory bail, considering the delay in filing the complaint and the lack of flight risk.
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the defacto complainant's accusations and the implications of the lengthy delay in reporting the alleged threats.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the freedom of the individual is paramount and that anticipatory bail should not be denied without substantial justification.
Result: Criminal petition allowed.
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’), has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.30 of 2024 of CID PS., Mangalagiri.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 384, 420, 109, 467, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNS’).
3. Pursuant to a report dated 02.12.2024 lodged by 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, the subject crime came to be registered. The allegations, in brief, are as follows:
(a) M/s. Kakinada Seaports Limited (for short, ‘KSPL’) is a concessionaire from the Government of Andhra Pradesh (for short, ‘GoAP’) vide Concession Agreement dated 19.03.1999, to carry on business of Kakinada Deep Water Port (for short, ‘KDWP’). KSPL made huge investments and developed KDWP. It became a profit-making company. M/s. Kakinada SEZ Limited (for short, ‘KSEZ’) acquired 8320 acres of land in various villages around Kakinada for setting up of SEZ and the Government of India also granted permission to set up multiproduct SEZ. The shareholders in the said company are M/s. Kakinada Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited (for short, ‘KIHPL’), M/s. Veda Infra Products (India) Private Limited and 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in personal capacity, altogether holding 48.74% shares, and the rest of the shareholding was by M/s. GMR SEZ and Ports Holdings Limited. KSEZ borrowed about Rs.2,000 crores, by way of inter-corporate deposits or sub-debts from GMR Group, for the purpose of undertaking acquisition of land, development of infrastructure, etc. As GMR Group has substantial interest in addition to 51% of shareholding and to avoid liabilities arising out of the debt and not been able to earn any income from KSEZ, KVR Group desired to part with their shares, and after negotiations between GMG Group and group of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, it was agreed that GMR would pay Rs.400 crores for acquisition of his 48.74% of the shareholding and an agreement was executed by the parties on 22.10.2019. KIHPL is a group investment company, which holds 41.12% of shareholding in KSPL and 48.74% (along with KVR Group), in KSEZ. KIHPL is totally held by 2nd respondent and his family members.
(b) After change of regime in GoAP in 2019 general elections, KSPL was not receiving co-operation from the Directors of the Port/AP Maritime Board in conduct of operations. KSPL is paying 22% of gross earnings of the company as revenue share to the State Government. The company had been paying the revenue share to the GoAP without any default. In addition to the calculations made by the Company to arrive at the gross earnings, the GoAP is also conducting audit of the revenues of the Company for determining the gross revenue as per the Concession Agreement. There was never substantial difference between the figures arrived at and paid by the Company and the determination by the audit authorities of the GoAP.
(c) While so, the KSPL received a Letter, dated13.11.2019 from the GoAP, appointing M/s. PKF Sridhar & Santhanam LLP (for short, ‘PKF’) for conducting special audits for PPP Ports, and the KSPL was called upon to furnish the entire data for the Financial Years ending 31.03.2015 to 31.03.2019, and the audit company called for records of the company, visited port office and started conducting the special audit. The GoAP vide Letter, dated 04.12.2019 informed the Port Company that it had appointed M/s. KROLL India, a Bombay based consulting firm, for conducting forensic audit in respect of KSPL and directed the company to furnish all the required documents, to enable smooth conduct of forensic audit. Accordingly, the Company furnished all the records. A team of said KROLL India came to Kakinada and obtained requisite documen
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing the importance of individual freedom and questioning the credibility of delayed accusations in fraud cases.
The main legal point established is that exoneration in civil nature adjudication does not preclude fresh consideration on the point of charge in criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court considered the civil nature of the dispute, the filing of a company petition, and the absence of misuse of anticipatory bail in gran....
The transfer of shares without proper documentation and board resolution constituted a prima facie case for trial, and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring an end to a criminal proceeding.
Point of law: While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, it is apt to be overlooked that even judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situat....
Point of law: While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, it is apt to be overlooked that even judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situat....
The court upheld that specific allegations of fraudulent conduct can sustain criminal charges against a property valuer providing inflated valuations to facilitate loan approvals.
A lack of prima facie evidence for conspiracy negates the framing of criminal charges against a bank valuer who submitted inflated property valuations.
Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings when they are manifestly attended by mala fide or when the dispute is purely civil, and the mandatory procedure under Section 20....
The court emphasized the right to bail based on substantial incarceration and the principle of parity, finding that serious charges under IPC were not prima facie established against the applicant.
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.