TUPAKULA APPA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P
LAWS(APH)-2001-12-117
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
December 10,2001
TUPAKULA APPA RAO
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
AMMAVASI AND ANOTHER V. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VALLIYANUR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. ANNE VENKATESWARE [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH VS. PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE [REFERRED TO]
RAGHBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. DAWOOD IBRAHIM KASKAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NAJAKAT ALIA MUBARAK ALI [REFERRED TO]
SHABBU V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NARA CHANDABABU NAIDU VS. STATE OF A.P [LAWS(APH)-2023-10-22] [REFERRED TO]GOWRI SHANKER GUPTA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2012-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
VISWANATHAN VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In as much as the petitioner
is the same and as common questions of
law are involved, all these petitions can be
disposed of together.
(2.)The factual matrix may be set forth thus: The petitioner has been working as the Secretary in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society of Nidamanuru. The said Society falls within the jurisdiction of Kumool District Central Co-operative Bank, Suryaraopet Branch. The Circle Supervisor of the said Bank reported misappropriation of the Bank funds in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society of Nidamanuru. Basing on his report, the Branch Manager of Suryaraopet Branch of the Kurnool District Central Co-operative Bank lodged a report with the Police alleging misappropriation of funds of the Society to the tune of Rs.14 lakhs, whereon, as many as four crimes have been registered against the petitioner and others by Patamata Law and Order Police Station, Vijayawada in Crime Nos.434 to 437 of 2001 under Sections 408, 468, 476 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of APP DFE Act of 1999. The investigation has been in progress. The petitioner was arrested on 30.10.2001 in connection with the Crime No.436 of 2001 and was remanded to judicial custody. He filed Crl.M.P.No.1266 of 2000 seeking bail and he was granted bail in that case. The petitioner apprehending arrest in other three crimes has not produced the sureties although bail has been granted to him. The petitioner, therefore, filed these petitions seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the remaining crimes. He pleads that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated although the receipts in these cases have been given by the President of the Society.
(3.)It has been contended before me that the petitioner has not been arrested in connection with the left out three crimes purposefully with an intention to see that he is arrested again the moment he is released pursuant to the bail granted to him in Crime No.436 of 2001 and likewise one after another in the other crimes so as to see that the petitioner continues to be in jail.
(2.)The factual matrix may be set forth thus: The petitioner has been working as the Secretary in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society of Nidamanuru. The said Society falls within the jurisdiction of Kumool District Central Co-operative Bank, Suryaraopet Branch. The Circle Supervisor of the said Bank reported misappropriation of the Bank funds in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society of Nidamanuru. Basing on his report, the Branch Manager of Suryaraopet Branch of the Kurnool District Central Co-operative Bank lodged a report with the Police alleging misappropriation of funds of the Society to the tune of Rs.14 lakhs, whereon, as many as four crimes have been registered against the petitioner and others by Patamata Law and Order Police Station, Vijayawada in Crime Nos.434 to 437 of 2001 under Sections 408, 468, 476 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of APP DFE Act of 1999. The investigation has been in progress. The petitioner was arrested on 30.10.2001 in connection with the Crime No.436 of 2001 and was remanded to judicial custody. He filed Crl.M.P.No.1266 of 2000 seeking bail and he was granted bail in that case. The petitioner apprehending arrest in other three crimes has not produced the sureties although bail has been granted to him. The petitioner, therefore, filed these petitions seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the remaining crimes. He pleads that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated although the receipts in these cases have been given by the President of the Society.
(3.)It has been contended before me that the petitioner has not been arrested in connection with the left out three crimes purposefully with an intention to see that he is arrested again the moment he is released pursuant to the bail granted to him in Crime No.436 of 2001 and likewise one after another in the other crimes so as to see that the petitioner continues to be in jail.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.