M V S Hari Prasad vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Heard Sri Kode Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 / State and Sri Kilaru Nithin Krishna, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners vague and omnibus and the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no supporting material to substantiate the financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Petitioners. Learned counsel further contends that the Petitioners were only employees discharging their assigned duties in the company and had no independent role or benefit in the alleged transactions. The allegations, even if taken at face value, would show a civil or commercial dispute. It is further submitted that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, despite alleged knowledge of the transactions much earlier, clearly indicates mala fide intention and an attempt to give a criminal colour to a business dispute. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners are being selectively targeted while the principal actors, including the alleged merger

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor by way of counter would submit that there are prima facie allegations against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that, as per the bank statements of the De facto complainant, misappropriate money has been routed to many accounts through fake payrolls and huge amounts have also been transferred to the individual accounts of the Accused and the firm accounts belong to the Accused. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that requisitions made to concerned banks with regard to the account statements of the beneficiaries of the fake payroll employees to analyse the money, are pending. It is contended that, Petitioners herein with the active support of 4 other Accused swindled crores of rupees belongs to De facto complainant’s company and the material collected so far prima facie establishes the case against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the investigation is at the nascent stage and custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is required to unveil the complicity of the other Accused in this crime. There are no grounds to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, in reply, by way of an affidavit, would submit that the bank accounts attributed to the Accused were created and those accounts were utilized for financial transactions relating to GST and vendor related payment transactions under the control and knowledge of the Petitioner and his associates. It is further submitted that, as Accused No.1 demanded legitimate professional fees and statutory TDS payments, he was falsely implicated to void the financial liability. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have been fully cooperating with the investigation.

The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Aditya Sarda,1 held that: