[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Lingala Mojesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 July, 2025
1
APHC010282172025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5882/2025
Between:
1. LINGALA MOJESH, S/O VARAPRASAD, AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. EX
EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR NO. 105, KESANUPALLI, KESANUPALLI,
CHILAKALURIPETA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the State Addl. Supdt.
Of Police CID, R.O, Guntur Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to grant Anticipatory Bail in the event
of arrest to the petitioner/AI7 in Crime. No. 23 of 2024 of C.I.D Mangalagiri
P.S., Guntur District U/s 318(4), 316(5), 61(2), BNS OF 2023 against the
petitioners/accused A17
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Crl.P.No.5882 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually and
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. Petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.17 in Crime No.23 of 2024 of
C.I.D., Mangalagiri Police Station, Guntur District registered with the
allegations of committing the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),
316(5) 61(2) of BNS Act.
Sequence of events and factual background, as per prosecution:-
3. [i] This is a case initially found as fraud of around 28 Crores
committed by one Duda Naresh Chandra Shekar, Bank Manager of ICICI
Bank and several others.
[ii] During 3rd October, 2024 to 5th October, 2024, multiple
complaints were received from various customers in the branches of ICICI
Bank situated at Chilakaluripeta, Narsaraopeta, Bharati Nagar,Vijayawada
from various customers, that the over draft facilities were taken on their Fixed
Deposits, with the bank without knowledge or consent of the individual.
[iii] Fixed Deposit holders complained that invalid Fixed Deposits were
issued to them and it was also alleged by few customers that jewels handed to
the Branch for loan purposes were also missing.
4. The modus of operandi of fraud is as follows:-
3
1. By availing Overdraft facilities against the Fixed Deposits of
customers without customers’ knowledge or consent.
2. Cheques collected from the customers in the pretext of limit
reduction in overdraft accounts were fraudulently diverted into third
parties’ accounts
3. Serial Numbers mentioned in Fixed Deposit receipts provided to
customers when checked, no such details were found in the Bank
records.
4. Customers were issued with jewel loan receipts, without affixing
any seal and signatures and no record was found with the given loan
numbers in the Bank records.
5. Complaint to the above effect was given by Zonal Head of ICICI Bank,
Vijayawada, on 07th October 2024 and a case is registered vide Crime
Number mentioned above.
6. During investigation, cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy for
personal gain etc., were found to a tune of 67 Crores. Statements of 118
witnesses were recorded. Some accused were arrested and investigation is
pending.
Specific case against the petitioner herein/A17
7. As per the confession of the accused No.1, the petitioner herein/A17
looked after the works of accounts and had knowledge of activities of A1 and
connived with A1 in utilizing the accounts of third parties like F.D.Rs., O.Ds.
and Gold loans. He has transferred the amounts to the persons and Firms
through account of his mother. The petitioner/A17 has purchased a Volvo Car
in the name of the petitioner, THAR Car in the name of his mother and handed
4
over those Cars to A1, and obtained financial gains from the crime proceeds,
thus involved in the fraud. Details of accounts of the petitioner/A17 and his
investments etc., are to be verified. Statements of some witnesses examined
indicating the collusion between A1 and A17 and diverting funds of customers
etc.
Defence of the petitioner/A17
8. [i] He is innocent.
[ii] His case is foisted with false allegations.
[iii] The alleged Volvo Car is of the year 2013, registration particulars
of the Car No.AP 31 CH 44 55, indicating transactions in the name of the
petitioner between 07.10.2024 to 12.11.2024 around a period of one (01)
month. Subsequently it was transferred to the name of others. That aspect
cannot be the basis to draw any inference at this stage and the petitioner is
not entrusted with any funds etc., and even as per prosecution, he is only
concerned with opening of accounts etc.
[iv] He is ready to co-operate with the Police for investigation.
9. Point for determination:
Whether the petitioner/A17 is entitled for the relief of pre-arrest bail in
respect of Crime No. 23 of 2024 of C.I.D., Mangalagiri Police Station, in
terms of Section 482 of BNSS? If so, on what conditions?
10. The opposition of prosecution is that in organized and schematic way
fraud is committed against public funds deposited with a Bank which is having
a good reputation. Important material is to be received including diversion of
5
funds, for which custodial interrogation is also necessary. If pre-arrest bail is
granted at this stage, the petitioner likely to tamper evidence by contacting the
witnesses etc. and he may not be even available for further legal process.
Precedential guidance:-
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring the observations made in Shri
Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. State of Punjab1, in Sushila Aggarwal v. State
(NCT of Delhi)2, vide Special Leave Petition in Crime No.7281, 7282 of 2017,
dated 29.01.2020, observed that certain parameters kept in view, while
dealing with the applications for grant of pre-arrest bail. They are as follows:-
“(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the
accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the
accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other
offences.
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the
accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact
role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated
with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court
should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication
in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
1
1980 AIR 1632; 1980 SCR (3) 383; (1980) 2 SCC 565
2
(2020) 5 SCC 1
6
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has
to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to
the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element
of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in
the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in
the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”
12. Offences and punishment:-
COGNIZABLE OR
SECTION NATURE OF PUNISHMENT BAILABLE NON-COGNIZABLE
OFFENCE OR NON-
BAILABLE
61(2) CRIMINAL Imprisonment for Bailable Non-Congnizable
CONSPIRACY 6 months or fine
or both316(5) CRIMINAL Imprisonment for Non- Cognizable
BREACH OF life or Bailable
TRUST Imprisonment for
upto 10 years
and fine318(4) CHEATING Imprisonment for Non- Cognizable
7 years and fine BailableFactors that contribute for answering the point:-
13. [i] Case is indicating financial fraud to a tune of 69 Crores.
[ii] The case is indicating involvement of several accused and
several witnesses and victims.
[iii] As per prosecution there is necessity as to custodial interrogation
for eliciting of information as to diversion of funds and its recovery etc.
7
[iv] The petitioner/accused is in-charge of opening of accounts and
the allegation is cheating the customers taking Over Drafts and diversion of
funds without consent of customers, furnishing fake F.D. Bonds etc..
[v] Investigation is pending.
14. The points canvassed by the accused are that good number of
witnesses are examined, the several other accused have got regular bail.
15. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, stage of
investigation and nature and gravity of the accusation etc., it is found that this
is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Point No.1 is
answered accordingly against the petitioner.
16. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
______________________________
A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 30.07.2025
Pnr
8
9
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Crl.P.No.5882 of 2025
Dated 30.07.2025
Pnr
[ad_2]
Source link