IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.
D. Srinivas Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana State - Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 3963 and 4007 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Financial Fraud - Indian Penal Code, Section 406, 420; Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 - [Sections 406, 420 IPC, Section 5 of the Depositors Act] - The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners who were accused of financial fraud under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. The court found evidence of a deep-rooted conspiracy between the accused and concluded that the complainants had been duped and their money diverted for wrongful purposes, including purchasing land in the names of the accused. The court held that granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and there was a possibility of the accused misusing their liberty to wipe out evidence. A detailed investigation was deemed necessary for seizing records, finding details regarding fund transfer and misappropriation, and seizing documents/sale deeds. Therefore, the court was not inclined to grant bail to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving financial fraud under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. The complainants alleged that the accused had collected a substantial amount of money from them for purchasing land and developing house plots, but instead diverted the funds for wrongful purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found evidence of a deep-rooted conspiracy between the accused and concluded that the complainants had been duped and their money diverted for wrongful purposes, including purchasing land in the names of the accused. The court held that granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and there was a possibility of the accused misusing their liberty to wipe out evidence.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the diversion of funds collected from the complainants for purchasing land and developing house plots, and the involvement of the accused in a deep-rooted conspiracy to misuse the funds for wrongful purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding of a deep-rooted conspiracy between the accused, the diversion of funds collected from the complainants for wrongful purposes, and the potential misuse of liberty by the accused to wipe out evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions, stating that a detailed investigation was necessary for seizing records, finding details regarding fund transfer and misappropriation, and seizing documents/sale deeds. Therefore, the court was not inclined to grant bail to the accused.
ORDER :
(B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.)
I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in CRLP. No. 3963 of 2021
&
1. The implead petitions are not opposed. Hence ordered.
CRLP Nos. 3963 and 4007 of 2021:
These two petitions are filed, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, who are A1 and A2 respectively in Cr. No. 310 of 2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, BHEL, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the Depositors Act').
2. A report was lodged by the defacto complainant- respondent No. 2 stating that he had been working in BHEL for seven years. Mr. D. Srinivas Rao (A1), the President of the Vivekananda BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Building Society Limited (Society) and the executive body started the said society vide registration No. CSRDDCO/2017/2550. They released brochure on 11.09.2018 stating that they propose to develop house plots (admeasuring 200 sq. yards) wherein they promised to construct houses in plots of 200 sq. yards at Muthangi Village for all the members, for which every member has to pay Rs.38,75,000/- for each plot. The President and the Executive Body members invited Tribha Venture Builder, Goverdhan Reddy (A2) to build houses in the said plots. A2 had discussions with the complainant and other members. A1 and A2 purchased and got registered Ac. 12.26 guntas of land in Muthangi. The complainant believed them and paid an amount of Rs.5,11,000/- in two spells through challan No. 5845297. Along with complainant about 313 persons paid money for purchasing and developing plots. In total, 18 crores was collected from the complainant and others. After some days, the complainant and other members asked the accused about the plots and they dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. The President, Secretary and Chief Adviser of the Society confessed in the Society meeting that they utilized the money invested by the complainant and other for their personal necessities. The President and the members started the society with the money invested by the complainant and other members and cheated them. Hence, action may be taken against A1 and A2.
3. Mr. Brahmandandi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 in CRLP. No. 3963 of 2021, submitted that the Society has entered into an MOU with Tribha Ventures represented by the Managing Director (A2) on 09.11.2018 for procurement of land and for developing the house sites of 200 sq. yards each with a built up area of 1150 sq. feet as per HMD Layout and permission. It was mutually agreed by both the parties that for 1 acre of land the builder has to spend Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the society has to bear Rs.30,00,000/- per acre and it was decided to purchase the land at Rs.1,30,00,000/- per acre with the said contribution. It was agreed that in case there is an enhancement of land value, the society shall bear the extra price. Due to steep increase in land prices, the landlords did not come forward to register the land as per the agreement, by demanding additional sale consideration. The society had incurred heavy burden and could not comply the conditions laid out in the MOU on account of unforeseen situation due to COVID-19 pandemic. There was step increase in land prices. The society and the builder were compelled to spend more money. The society collected Rs.18,87,47,869/- but the society has spent to the tune of Rs.18,94,82,370/-. The society purchased an extent of Ac. 12.26 guntas of land with the money collected from its members. Altogether along with builder the society spend Rs.27,00,00,000/-. Due to landlords' resiling from the contract on account of increased of land value and also due to COVID-19, the execution of the work and the construction of houses could not take place. The society conducted meetings regularly inf
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of financial fraud and deep-rooted conspiracy, granting anticipatory bail may impede the investigation and there is a possibility of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant based on the lack of adverse antecedents, the collection of alleged documentary evidence by the Inv....
The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and the interest of society in deciding bail applications, considering the nature and seriousness of economic offences and their impact on ....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of preventing the abuse of legal processes and highlights the need for substantial evidence to support criminal allegations.
Bail – In a case involving large scale financial fraud particularly those affecting public, Court shall be duty-bound to approach the case for bail in a cautious and guarded manner.
The court determined that the serious allegations of financial fraud, coupled with the accused's criminal history and risk of witness tampering, justified a refusal of bail.
Point of Law : Power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly, otherwise same would adversely affect investigation.
Anticipatory bail in serious financial offences is not granted where custodial interrogation is vital to recover missing voluminous records and trace misappropriated funds. Previous bail in similar c....
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.