Z> E=_ [3327] lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA,Tq MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY \ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6335 OF 2025 Between : Tiruma Reddi Suri Babu, S/o T. Appa Rao, Aged about 38 years. Residing at No. 1-84, Garida Village of Gorla Mandat Vizianagaram DistrI-Ct Petitioner/Accused No.3 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati through 1 Town VI-ZI-anagaram Vizianagaram District Respondent/Complainant Petl-lion under Section 482 of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C), is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner /Accused No.3 lan the event of his arrest in FIR No.44 of 2025, Dt.14- 02-2025 of I Town Vizianagaram, vizianagaram DistrI|Ct U/Sec. 409, 406, 420, 120B RAV. 34 lPC. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR, Advocate for the petI'tiOner and Of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the court made the foIIowI-ng; -____ _ u I -|rL-I J -_LJr. ._ I ._- `_` THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6335 OF 2025 i ORDER-. The Criminal petI'tl'On, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhI-ta, 2023, is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A3 to grant an{icipatory baI'l in connection Wl-th Crime No.44/2025 of Vizianagaram I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram District. 2) A case has been registered agaI-nSt the petitioner for the offences punI'Shable under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120B read with 34 I.P.C. 3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant is working as Deputy General Manager-Gum-Regional Head, Hyderabad Region, REPCO Home Finance Limited; that prior to 26.06.2024 at REPCO Housing Finance Liml'ted situate at Mayuri Junction, near sp Bungalow, Vizianagaram, the company entrusted their internal audit to one JyothilaI, Inspector; that on 26.06.2024, said JyothilaI, Inspector inspected and conducted the audit and found many serious irregularities and one such fraud was that the petitioner/accused No.3 and his mother who are resI-ding at Garida village of VI-Zianagaram -.-, . _ __ -L-i--=_i \rf l`9 district, made loan application for purchasing 6 plots from one Balachandra Rao and his Panel lawyer, estimated the market Value of sites to a tune of Rs.62,99,631/-; that the then Branch ln-charge ,-.e. paneti praveen Kumar and accused No.1, who is Regional Manager, physically visited the property and gave positive report, recommending proposal to sanction Rs.34,50,000/-; that the loan Was SanCtiOned and the petitioner/accused No.3 paid eight installments and when the internal auditors visited the property on 29.06.2024 and found that there is a crematorium in one side of the sites and the same was not brought to the knowledge of the company; that basing on the actual value of the sites, though the customers are eligible tO fund Rs.16,63,000/-, exorbitant Value Was given and thereby, the Petitioner and his mother planned and criminally conspired to cheat the funds Of the company and all the accused were alleged to have looted the money of the company and caused loss tO a tune Of Rs.23,37,000/-. The Case was registered and investigated into, 4) Heard learned COunSel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5) A perusal of material On record goes tO Show that the Petitioner obtained loan from the COmPlainant company by mOrtgaging the _ ~z<. i-se*-_ `` FT-+=+-g ++ + i----_ ib =±++Tl-L_ ---I \r --I ts±?*S Property belonged tO hI-m. Pr1,'ma faC,-e it appears that accusation aS against the co-accused is that the morfgaged property has not been valued properly. The valuation of the property has to be done by the blank authorities or surveyor and the petitioner has nothing to do with regard to the value of the morfgaged property as the petitI-Oner does not come within the purview of borrower, and he is the customer to the complainant company. ln view of -the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6) Accordingly, in the event of hi^s`arrest with regard to this crime, petitioner/A3 shall be released on bail on hl's executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials, and also on condition that the petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required and that he shall not Cause any threat, inducement Or Promise tO the Prosecution Witnesses. 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. €F --I-- .` ---`_---._-_ -i--__i-_-.i=L*--- \ SD/-B.CHITT' JO 7) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// I lt! OFFICER. For/ .``Tol 1. The Principal Distr'lct & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The Station House Officer, I Town Vizianagaram, Viz'lanagaram District 3. One CC to SRl. B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two cos to PubI'lc Prosecutor, High Court ofAP [OUT] 5. One spare copy KJ _±-`= _--i-±_ - rf=- HIGH COURT SRK,J DATED : 07/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6335 of 2025 ALLOWED