Pappireddigari Sravan Kumar vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had reasonable grounds to believe he might be arrested for a non-bailable offence, based on the notice issued by the company and his reply. The Court directed the respondents to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, in the event any complaint is made by the company. Any deviation from this procedure would be viewed seriously. The Court did not explicitly grant anticipatory bail but disposed of the criminal petition with these directions, effectively ensuring due process if an arrest were to be made.
Facts
The petitioner, an Office Assistant at M/s. Builders Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail. The company, engaged in security and housekeeping services, had issued a notice alleging the petitioner, purportedly appointed as Chief Financial Officer from August 2018 to April 2021, misappropriated Rs. 1,99,79,425/- through falsification of accounts and diversion of funds meant for TDS and GST. The petitioner denied these allegations, stating he was merely an Office Assistant, not involved in accounts or statutory payments. He contended that the company directors were diverting funds and that a complaint might be filed against him. The company's directors allegedly transferred amounts to the petitioner's bank account and withdrew them. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) was reportedly holding an inquiry.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has reasonable grounds to apprehend arrest for a non-bailable offence, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was appointed only as an Office Assistant and was not involved in financial irregularities, audit statements, or statutory payments. He claimed the company directors were diverting funds and fabricating documents. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, asserting that an FIR is not a prerequisite for considering anticipatory bail and that the court can grant it if there's a genuine apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that no complaint had been received by the authorities yet and that there were no reasonable grounds for the petitioner's apprehension.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 41-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3996 OF 2021
ORDER:- This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking pre arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused in the event of his arrest in connection with unregistered crime which would be foisted against the petitioner by respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the 1st respondent company. He is not a qualified Charted Accountant so also he is not incharge of accounts of the company. The 1st respondent company is engaged in the services of security and housekeeping.
Smt Sashirekha, who is one of the Directors of M/s.Builders Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Security and Facility Solutions. Her husband indulged in financial irregularities and did not properly account the government with regard to the income of the company. Action has been initiated by the statutory authorities against the company for evasion of taxes and submitting false accounts. The said Sashirekha and her husband used to transfer the amounts to the bank account of the petit
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.