N.S.Sudheendra At Seshagiri Sudheendra vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the allegations against the petitioners, including furnishing fake quotations, advance receipts, MOUs, and other documents without purchasing machinery or establishing units, with fraudulent intent to cheat the bank by forging valuable security, were of a serious nature. A perusal of the record indicated a prima facie case to believe in the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the offense. The Court noted that the petitioners had avoided arrest since the registration of the crime. Citing Supreme Court decisions in Rakesh Baban Borhade, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, and Siddharam Satrlingappa Mhetre, which emphasize that anticipatory bail is not a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and with caution and prudence, the Court found no inclination to grant bail. The petitions were dismissed.

Facts

Criminal Petitions were filed seeking anticipatory bail by multiple accused (A1, A7, A6, and A4) in Crime No. 28 of 2022, registered at C.C.S. Tirupathi Police Station. The case involves allegations of cheating the Bank of India, Tirupati Branch, and obtaining a loan of Rs. 3,93,86,226/- by producing false and fabricated documents, including forged VAT/GST certifications, to establish manufacturing units under the CGTMSE scheme. The defacto complainant, a Senior Branch Manager, lodged the report on June 21, 2022. The petitioners claim innocence, stating the loan was sanctioned after due verification and they have been repaying it, with the complaint lodged after 8 years. The prosecution contends that the investigation is ongoing and involves misappropriation of funds up to Rs. 50.00 crores.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating, forgery, and misappropriation of funds? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners asserted their innocence, claiming they were implicated without basis. They argued that the bank sanctioned the loan after verifying VAT/GST certifications and that they were regular in repaying the loan amounts, indicating no motive to cheat. They also highlighted that the complaint was lodged after a significant delay of 8 years and that the investigation was nearing completion, with them ready to pay any outstanding balance. They relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding the cautious exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail applications, contending that the investigation was still in progress. They emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, including the misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 50.00 crores, and stated that the truth of these accusations could only be determined through further investigation.