MUPPIDI AVINASH REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7, in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered for the offences 409, 420, and 120-B read with Ss. 34, 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[For short 'IPC'] and Ss. 7, 7(a), 8, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[For short 'PC Act'].

(2.) Heard Sri K.Ramkanth Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.Mokshitha Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri PosaniVenkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.7 would submit that no prima facie case, is made out against the Petitioner, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC are entirely absent. Ss. 409, 34, 37, and 120-B IPC are not applicable to the Petitioner, as there is no entrustment of property, fiduciary duty, conspiracy, or unlawful agreement. Mere presence at meetings does not constitute criminal liability, and the Petitioner's role in the alleged OFS or kickbacks is unsupported by any evidence.Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The Petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation, travelled abroad with the knowledge of the investigating officer, and remains willing to assist. It is submitted that the call data records confirm his cooperation, and there is no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court judgments in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh ,(2021) 2 SCC 779. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbiav. State of Punjab,(1980) 2 SCC 565. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,(2014) 8 SCC 273. to emphasize that anticipatory bail is the rule, where no prima facie case exists.It is further submitted thatmere existence of a Look Out Circular cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 7282 of 2018. Arrest would serve no investigatory purpose and would amount to punitive detention. Grant of anticipatory bail would protect the Petitioner's fundamental right to liberty while allowing the investigation to proceed unhindered.