APHC010418822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: Duddu Ankama Babu and The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. S VARADARAJULU CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 696/2025 Between: Avula Ramana Reddy, The State of A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6724/2024 Duddu Ankama Babu and another ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND f Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): S VARADARAJULU CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 696/2025 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3239] THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: As both these Criminal Petitions arise out of the same crime, they are being disposed of by way of common order. 2. A.4 and A.5 in Cr.No.101/2024 on the file of Kadiri Urban Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District, filed Crl.P.No.6724/2024 seeking anticipatory bail, whereas, A.3 filed Crl.P.No.696/2025 seeking anticipatory bail. Said crime was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 409 & 420 r/w 34 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution is that A.1 was working as Deputy Manager (PF No.7455658) posted as Agriculture Field Officer of Kadiri ADB since 02.07.2021 and was managing all agricultural loans of the Branch. After receiving from bank’s internal alert system (OTMS) finding a suspicious debit entry in a CC / OD loan account, the Bank has conducted an internal investigation and traced out various suspicious transactions and found that those transactions were made by A.1. The modus operandi involved in commission of offence is that first the employee has scrutinized the CC / OD loan accounts where the loans were repaid by borrowers but the accounts were not closed. Selecting those accounts, the credit limits were amended in CBS using his credentials and fresh limit of Rs.20.00 lakhs for each account was established and thereafter the funds of such enhanced limits have been transferred to Savings Bank accounts of the respective CC / OD loan accounts. From these Savings Bank accounts, the funds were siphoned by 3 A.1 and A.2 routing it through 13 accounts which include the accounts of petitioners, who are their relatives and friends. They in turn transferred the amounts to the account of A.2. To accomplish the said fraudulent transactions, A.1 to A.3 modified the SMS alert module in the CBS system, so that respective Savings banks account holders could not receive SMS alerts to their respective mobiles registered with Bank. Accordingly, A.1 to A.3 in collusion with 13 account holders have siphoned an amount of Rs.1,67,84,380.01 ps. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is A.1 to A.3, who are responsible for misappropriating the said amounts. He further contends that the petitioners are none other than close friends of A.2. As such, they are not aware of the misappropriation of the bank accounts. He further states that A.2 borrowed certain amounts from A.4 and A.5 and repaid the same. As such, he requests this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail. So far as A.3 is concerned, his earlier application vide Crl.P.No.4676/2024 was already dismissed by this Court by order dt. 18.12.2024 and there are no changed circumstances. Again he filed the present application seeking anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petitions contending that the petitioners are responsible for misappropriation of huge funds of the bank to the extent of Rs.1,67,84,380.01 ps. The matter is still under investigation. He further contends that A.1 to A.3 have committed the misappropriation with the active support of 13 account holders. 4 6. This Court perused the entire material on record. 7 As seen from the material, the allegation made against the petitioners is that the amounts belonging to the bank were funded to their accounts, who in turn transferred the said amount in favour of A.2. As such, the petitioners facilitated A.2 and A.1 in misappropriating the amounts of the bank. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, both these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. __________________ K SURESH REDDY, J Date: 24.01.2025 MVA 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6724 of 2024 and 696 of 2025 24.01.2025 MVA