Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35660 (AP)

GANGARAJU GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CRLP/9185/2024 · 2025-01-09

V R K Krupa Sagar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

`.. ` lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,-THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9185 OF 2024 Between : |P 8 , _ r-ir 1. Gangaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy, S/o G. Venkata Subba Rao, aged 59 years, vice- president, zuari cement Ltd. Seethapuram, Dondapadu village, chintalapalem mandal, Suryapet D-lstrict, Telangana 2. Vasireddy Siva Kumar, S/o Venkanna, aged 34 years. Accounts Department, Zuari Cement Ltd. Seethapuram, Dondapadu Village, chintalapalem mandal, suryapet District Telangana, permanent R/o D.No.8-57-1, Reddy Bazaar, Gantelamma Chettu, Chandarlapat|-''.i, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh 3. Aynampudi Ramanjaneya Raju, S/o Peer Raju, aged 54 years. Purchase Department, Zuari Cement Ltd. Seethapuram, Dondapadu Village, chintalapalem mandal, suryapet District Telangana, permanent R/o Flat No.GF4(W), Arkhya Residency, NCL North Avenue, Near Cineplanet, Kompally, K.V Rangareddy, Telangana 4. Boppana Ashok Kumar, S/o BVK Raja Rao, aged 54 years. Lab Department, Zuari Cement Ltd. Seethapuram, Dondapadu Village, chintalapalem mandal, suryapet District Telangana, permanent R/o D.No.8-192/1, Kanuru Village, Kanuru Post Penamaluru Mandal, vjjayawada Rural, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh ...petitioners/Accused No.2 to 5 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep., by S.H.O, Jaggaiahpet P.S., NTR District Rep. through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati. ... Respondent/Complainant petition under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances Stated in the memorandum Of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail in the event of Petitioners/Accused no.2 to 5 being arrested in connection with F.I.R No. 264 of 2024, dt. 23.10.2024 on the file of S.H.O, Jaggaiahpet Police Station, NTR District. counsel for the petitioner : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Pawan Kumar Malapati Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: '`` `~\ ao¥ffl --=EEEE f/ THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9185 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.264 of 2024 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station, NTR District, registered for the OffenCeS Punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) and 351 (2) read with 3(5) of BNS. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.Pawan Kumar,: the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. The accused herein/A.2 to A.5 are employed in Zuari Cements Limited in various cadres. Sri Mullangi Rama Krishna Reddy is the de facfo complainant on whose written information Crime No.264 of 2024 was registered at JaggaI'ahPet Police Station on 23.10.2024. The allegations in the F.I.R. show that the de facfo complainant and one Mr. Seethala Kesav together . :iA?-# I/ formed a partnership and established Siva Trading Company and Siddi Vinayaka Transport. The de facfo complainant is stated to be a sleeping partner whereas Sri Seethala Kesav is stated to be an active partner. The grievance raised in the F.I.R. is that Sri Seethala Kesav has not been furnishing proper accounts and on verification I't Was found that each Of the Partners Was earning Rs.7,00,000/.- per month, but Sri Seethala Kesav was paying Rs.74,000/-per month to the de facfo complainant. 4. The further allegation of the de facfo complainant is that when he asked his partner about the accounts, he told him that he was paying a lot of kickbacks to the accused herein as they were supplying the goods to the company in which these accused are employed. 5, By the present petition, these petitioners pray for pre-arrest bail. Their contention is that they have been employees of Zuari Cements Limited. As thel'r new vendor for supply of laterite they engaged M/s. Siva Trading Company on 20.07.2016 and M/s. Siddi Vinayaka Transport is `thet'r registered transporter. According to the documents submitted to them and the information furnished to them by sri seethala Kesav those two I,\ r/ ent-lties are propriety concerns and not partnership firms and the name of the c/e facto compla-lnant was never seen. That the allegations in the F.I.R. are incorrect and false. 6. The further COntentiOn Of the Petit'lOnerS iS that On the Same set of facts the de facfo comp[ainant had earl-ler filed a complaint and that was registered as c.c.No.1358 of 2022 on the file Of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, JaggaiahPet. praying to quash the proceed-lngs the pet'ltioners applied to this court and an interim stay of all further proceedings in the said calendar case was granted. The present F.I.R. was registered by suppressing all these material facts. 7. The further COntentiOn Of the Pet'ItiOnerS iS that Way back in the year 2021 'ltself When the de faCfO COmPlainant Sent multiple legal notices to them they sternly told h-lm and sri seethala Kesav to have the disputes settled between themselves since these petitioners and zuari cements Limited have nothing tO dO With it. 8. The factual contentions raised in the Petition are not disputed by the state. The fact that these Petitioners have nO criminal antecedents and have permanent abode are also not disputed by the prosecution. A reading Of F.I.R. does not Pr,'ma a|, I r/ fac,-e I'ndl'Cate any criminal acts agaI-nSt these petitl'oners. The facts alleged indicate swallowI'ng of funds by the alleged partner of the de facfo complal'nant. Even as per F.I.R. these petjtl'oners did not in any way either cheated or committed breach of trust. ln these circumstances, any custodI'al I-nterrogatjon does not seem necessary. Hence, prayer js granted. 9. ln the result, thl-s crI'minal Pet,'tion I-s allowed jn the following terms.I 1. The petI'tiOners are directed to join the l'nvestl-gation. 2. ln the event of arrest of the petitl-oners hereI'n/A.2 to A.5, they shall be enlarged on ba" on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfactl'on of the concerned I'nVeStigatl-ng offf'cer. 3. The petI'tjOners sha" mark their attendance before the jnvestjgatI'ng offl'cer on lSt and 15th of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for a period of three months or till fI'Iing of the charge sheet whichever js earlier. EREid ` ~r 4. The Petit'lOnerS Shall make themselves aVa-llable for investigation by a pol'lce offlICer aS and When requ'lred. 5. The petitioners Shall not, directly Or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. 6. The pet-ltiOnerS Shall not indulge in Similar acts Of Crime. 7. The petitioners must regularly Participate in the Pre-trial and trial process w-lthout fa" before the competent court. //TRUE COPY// For / sD/-N.NAGAMMA A S SslEScTTAINo%#TG:l!ScT:RRA R To'1. The Station House Offlcer, JaggaiahPet Pollce Station, NTR District 2. One CC to SRl. PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare COPY CVSS |/ I HIGH COURT Dr VRKS,J DATED..09/01/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9185 of 2024 ALLOWED _5