Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B. Krishna Mohan, J.
Premaraopogu Sujatha – Petitioner
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.3667 of 2023
Decided on 3.6.2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Crime registered under Section 13 (1) (b) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – As investigation is in progress, respondent/investigating agency is at liberty to proceed with case strictly in accordance with law – Since there is no dispute that accused has been in remand from 3.5.2023 onwards and she is suffering from serious chronic ailments which may require attention of Doctors periodically, keeping these factors and circumstances in view, bail granted against conditions. (Para 11)
Result: Criminal Petition disposed of.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Criminal petition is filed seeking regular bail for the petitioner/Accused in connection with Crime No.04/RCAKUR/2023, dated 29.04.2023, registered under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is working as Assistant Registrar in Divisional Co-operative Office, Krishna Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District and she acquired and possessed disproportionate assets to the known sources of her income. The petitioner’s house and other places were raided on 2.5.2023 and the incriminating documents of immovable properties, cash and gold ornaments were seized. Thus found the disproportionate assets for the value of Rs.1,78,74,894/-approximately. Hence the above said case was registered. The remand report of the respondent/complainant discloses the following table of assets in the name of AO and her family members.
| Sl. No. | Particulars of the assets | On whom the property held | Amount | Registration charges |
|
| 1. | Purchased two old houses each an extent of 133.33 sq.yards. Later, the same was demolished and constructed a new house (C+2) bearing no.49/50-A465 an extent of 218.79 Sq.Mt at Sreerama Nagar, near Nagulakatta, Kurnool town in the year 2010. But the document is available for one site vide Doc.1407/2002 of SRO, Kurnool (RO), Dt.25-022002 to an extent of 133.333 sq.yd. Note: On verifying property tax, the SO paid tax to the municipality to an Extent of 218.79 Sq.Mt. | In the name of SO | 52,65,000/ (Plot cost is Rs.2,65,000/-+ construction house Rs.50,00,000/-) | 13,250/ |
|
| 2. | Constructed a house [G+1] bearing no. 45/204-A1-3 in 97.16 Sq.yd at Ashok Nagar, Kurnool town in the year 2014 by the SO. But the site was gifted by her mother vide Doc. 10823/2003 of SRO, Kallur, Dt. 10.12.2003 | In the name of SO | 18,00,000/ | 4,170/ |
|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 3. | Purchased extent of an 300 sq.yd house plot in the year 1993 vide Doc. 7986/1993, dated:. 27-12-93. Later, he gave 119.77 sq.yd as gift deed to his sister in the year 2009 vide Doc. No.4672/2009, dt.2409-2009 of SRO, Kallur. In the year 2015 SO constructed a new house in the name of her husband bearing no. 81/241-4-1-b in the remaining 180.23 sq.yd at Kasturi Nagar, Revenue ward No-81, Kurnool City. On verifying property tax the husband of SO is paying tax to Kurnool Municipality to an extent of 155.68 Sq.Mtrs. | In the name of SO’s husband A. Chandra Sekhar | 19,00,000/ | — |
|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 4. | Purchased an old house having an area 38.72 square yards vide Doc.10210/2011 of SRO, Kurnool (RO). Later, the same was demolished and constructed 2 shops in the ground floor and 2 portions above the shops during the year 2018-2019 by the SO bearing No.46/419-A at Budawadarapeta, Kurnool town. | In the name of SO’s husband A. Chandra Sekhar | 18,75,000/ (Plot cost is Rs.5,25,000/-+ construction house Rs.13,50,000/-) | 31,400/ |
|
|
| |||||
|
| en|||||
In cases of disproportionate assets, the delay in FIR registration and the nature of evidence (documentary) can justify bail, especially when health and family circumstances are considered.
Bail – Pre-trial punishment is not required.
The prosecution must establish disproportionate income to deny bail under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 CrPC for a government servant accused of disproportionate assets, emphasizing cooperation with investigation and non-flight risk.
The court upheld that a second FIR can be maintained if substantial new evidence or distinct allegations arise, confirming the validity of proceedings regarding disproportionate assets under the Prev....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
