Kona Kishore Babu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning provided is that the allegations against the petitioner are serious, involving the use of fabricated GST returns to secure a substantial loan and the subsequent diversion of those funds. The Court noted that the investigation was still in progress. Based on these facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail would not be appropriate. The Criminal Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Facts
The petitioner, A23, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 25 of 2021, registered by the CID Police, Mangalagiri. The case involves allegations of fraud against M/s. Vijaya Vardhan Impex, a firm that obtained credit facilities of Rs. 265.00 lakhs from UCO Bank, Guntur. An internal inspection revealed suspicious transactions, and an inquiry officer reported that the loan was obtained by submitting fabricated Income Tax and GST returns. The prosecution alleges that funds were diverted or siphoned off, and securities were overvalued. Specifically, it is alleged that the petitioner received Rs. 2,64,49,610/- from the loan amounts. The investigation was ongoing at the time of the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with the alleged offences of cheating (Section 420 IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 409 IPC), criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC), and corruption (Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, implying a belief that their liberty was at risk and that the circumstances warranted such relief. Specific arguments for the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue/State's contention: The prosecution argued that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the allegations, including the use of fabricated GST returns to obtain loans and the subsequent diversion of funds. The investigation was not yet complete.
Sections Cited
Section 438 Cr.P.C., Section 420 IPC, Section 409 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7978 of 2022 Order:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/A23, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.25 of 2021 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 34 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one K. Rambabu along with other partners of M/s. Vijaya Vardhan Impex approached UCO Bank, Guntur Main Branch for availing certain credit facilities for carrying their business of pulses and grains. On 23.04.2019, the Bank sanctioned cash credit limits of Rs.265.00 lakhs. While monitoring the high value accounts of Guntur main branch, the Bank officials found suspicious about the transactions that took place in the borrower account and an internal inspection was conducted during 29.12.2019 – 15.02.2020 in the subject borrower loan account and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report observing that the borrower availed loan by submitting fabricated IT and GST returns. Subsequently, the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.