. . I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AM WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUAR' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 534 OF 2025 REDB (-,-.-,.I '_+_I Betwee n : Gulivindala Harl-sh, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, aged about 38 Years, R/o. FIat No.103, AVK Sidharda Enclave, Near 2nd Bus Stop, PM Palem, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Represented by its public Prosecutor, Through P.M.Palem P.S, Visakhapatnam High Court ofAndhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under sectl'on 480 r/w 483 of BNSS/ Section 437 r/w 439 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be PIeased to enlarge the petitl'oner on bail in connection with the F.I.R. No.479 of 2024, dated 16.08.2024 on the file of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam commissionerate; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusI'ng the Petition and memorandum of grounds of criml'nal petition and upon hearing the arguments.of Sri Shaik Mohammed lsmail, Advocate fo+ the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent; APHCOI OO26252025 HELE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.534 OF 2025 Betwee n : Gulivindala Harish ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/A1, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.479 of 2024 of PM Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, `L-t _ rf Fi.=-E=_ 2 J/ 471, 384 read with 34 read with 120-B IPC and Section 21 (1 )(2)(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short lBUDS Act'). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, prior to 16.08.2024, A1, posing himself that he would provide Government jobs in Railway Department, collected huge amounts from the de facfo complainant, his family members and 47 others and gave some fake appointment orders to them. When the de facfo complainant and others asked to` repay their amounts, Al did not return the same, thereby cheated them. 4. Heard. Perused the record. 5. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the amounts Were allegedly paid by the c/e facfo complainant to Al in the months of December 2018 and January 2019, whereas the BUDS Act came into force subsequently i,e., on 31.07.2019 and it has no retrospective effect. when the accusations made Were Pertaining tO the Period Prior tO introduction Of the BUDS Act, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the provisions of the BUDS Act can be applied to the present facts and circumstances of the case or not and whether the amounts allegedly given to the accused for securing jobs would fall within the category of deposits as defined under the BUDS Act or not. '\® .-----z=_-I-` 3 ., 6. Irrespective of the sa®ld fact, petitioner herein/Al was arrested on 08.12.2024 and since then he is in judicial remand. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that so far, as many as 30 witnesses, who are the victims in the present case, were examined. According to him, some more witnesses are to be examined. At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that it is not the quantity, but the quality matters. lf one witness deposes against the petitioner herein, that would suffice if the offence would attract against the petitioner herein or not. ln the present case, according to the prosecution, as many as 30 witnesses were examined accusing the petitioner herein that he is alleged to have collected monies under the pretext of providing jobs and cheated the de facfo complainant and others. Further, the maximum period of punishment prescribed under Section 21 (1 )(2)(3) of the BUDS Act is ten (10) years. 7. ln View of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/Al on the following conditions. i) The petitioner/Al shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the a zfrzzfr` .`-`- i ` 4 J/ satisfaction of the learned principal District Judge, V'lsakhapatnam. ii) on release, the petitioner shall appear before the station House Officer concerned every day between 10-00 am and o1.00 pm, till filing Of the Charge Sheet. 8. Accord'Ingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. -/ r#-cO sd/-N. NAdAEL"A ASSISTANT RE TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER For To, 1. The Principal District Judge, at V'lsakhaPatnam. 2. The Superintendent, Central Pr'lson, V'lsakhaPatnam 3. The Station House Officer, P,M.Palem P.S, VisakhaPatnam 4. One CC to Sri. Sha-lk Mohammed lSma'll, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 6. One spare COPY I_-ii _-`-a HIGH COURT SRK,J DATED..05/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.534 of 2025 ALLOWED i,`j\-*=S - 5 FEB 2015l wll-I . ---=::-:-: -:--:-_i ----- qu rr-n qAq£' HJ I_._I-=j_ -S-.`=l-'|`*-.