lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY,€ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT /. J.. ` -/, HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA ',':,:*.-.i_a_-_g3gng% cR[M[NAL PETITION NO: 4512 OF 2025 v, ''T`xpfr-I Betwee n : `,,.` s.sudheer, (But Petitioner Name shown as Sudheer NVSAMPR SanganapaIIi in the FIR), S/o. Late Sanaganapalli Venkata Ratnam, Aged 41 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o, H.No.Ambady House, 49/50, Old Seminary Road, Chungam, Kottayam, Kerala State. ~ ...Petitioner/AI AND |€j.,I,, The State of Andhra Prad;sh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through Sl of police, 1 Town Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. \/ ...Respondent I... I Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the -. \, event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.44 of 2025, Dt.14-02-2025 of PS Vizianagaram 1 Town Vizianagaram District (U/Sec. 409, 406, 420, 120B RAN.34IPC; , The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments E= of Sri Venkat Prasad Ukkalam, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent; ~~ I (Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4512 of 2025) APHCO10214712025 EErri:E. lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIIVIINAL PETITION NO: 4512/2025 Between : S Sudheer [3521] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VENKAT PRASAD UKKALAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity {the BNSS]) by the petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.44 of 2025 of Vizianagaram I Town Police station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the allegeal offences E/=ii= . . 2 (Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4512 of2025) punishable under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ( in short fIPC'). 2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that prior to 26.06.2004, at about 16:00 hours, the cZe /czcto co7xpZczz-71CZ71t lodged a report With the police stating that the petitioner/accused No.1, who was the Regional Head for five States and stationed in Kerala, along with others, had defrauded and misappropriated funds in the loan process of purchasing the house plots, thereby committing criminal breach of trust. Based on the said report, the Station House Officer, Vizianagaram I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered a case in crime No.44 of 2025 and investigated into. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri Venkat Prasad Ukkalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 submits that the cze /czcfo co772P/CZZ-77CZ77, has not produced any evidence to show that the petitioner intentionally misappropriated the company's funds or committed cheating. The allegations made in the complaint do not attract the essential ingredients of the aforesaid sections. The petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner would abide by any condition to be imposed by this court. A'\ t\ >3' RE-E 3 (Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4512 of 2025) 5. The learned counsel forthe petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon]ble Supreme Court in DeZJIZ Rczce CZItb /J94O/ Limited and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1 , wherein the Court discussed the applicability and permissibility of invoking Section 406 lPC. Relevant observations are found in paragraphs 44 and 49, which read as follows : "44. At the most, the Court of the Additional Chief Judicl-al Magistrate could have issued process for the offence punishable under Section 420 lPC l®.e. cheat1-ng but in any circumstances no case of crim1-nal breach Of trust iS made Out. The reason being that indisputably there is no entrustment of any property in the case at hand. It is not even the case of the compla]-nant that any property was lawfully entrusted to the appellants and that the same has been dishonestly misappropn-ated. The case of the complainant is plain and simple. He says that the price of the goods sold by him has not been paid. Once there is a sale, Section 406 IPC goes out of picture. According to the complainant, the e invo1-CeS raised by h1-m Were not Cleared. No case worth the name of cheating is also made out. 49. case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are dell-vered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, cannot be sa1-d that the Purchaser Was entrusted With the Property Of the seller. Wl-thout entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure t'o pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no cn-minal ca'se will be maintainable for it. " EE= 1 (2024) 10 SCC 690 *J_ (Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4512 of 2025) 6. Per cor7fra, Mr.Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail, stating that the petitioner had not visited the site nor informed the Bank officials accordingly. lt was also submitted that there is no crematorium (smasar7arr7) On One SI'de Of the site, as confirmed upon physl'cal verification ; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he wou,ld escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petition. 7. As seen from the notepad details, there is no reference indicating that the petitioner, in the capacity of Regional Manager, was required to verify the physical features of the property and submit the same to the Bank for loan processing. ln view of the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.1, this Court is inclined to consider request of petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed with the following directions: a) ln the event of arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.7O,OOO/-(jtz,pees ,e72 zfeozJSCZ7Zd O#/I,), With two Sureties for the like Sum each tO the Satisfaction Of -the arresting POIice officials; `\ -`.`. ¢±-i- Q>- 5 (Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4512 of2025) b) The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. e) The petitioner shall not leave the district limits Without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTAN REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C-TION OFFICER I To, 1. The Station House Officer/Sl/CI,1 Town Vizianagaram Police Station, Vizianagaram District. .... 2. One CC to Sri. Venkat Prasad Ukkalam, Advocate [OPUC] + 3. Two CCs to Public Pro3eC`utOr, High Court ofAP [OUT] \Z. 4. One spare copy |1, HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED:15/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4512 of 2025 ALLOWED