A VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is A1 in Crime No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Central Bureau of Investigation, BS & FC, Bangalore, registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. By way of this petition, he seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, based on the complaint lodged by the State Bank of India (hitherto, the State Bank of Hyderabad), is that the petitioner-A1, being the Promoter Director of M/s.Servomax India Private Limited, misutilized bank funds along with the other accused by committing offences under the provisions set out supra. The alleged loss caused to the bank was to the extent of nearly Rs.300.00 Crore.

(3.) Earlier, the petitioner-A1 approached the learned XXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore, vide Crl.Misc.No.4477 of 2018, seeking anticipatory bail in relation to this crime. By order dated 15.12.2018, the Bangalore Court allowed the application directing that in the case of arrest of the petitioner-A1 by the CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore, in relation to FIR No.2 of 2018, he should be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs.10,00,000/- along with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to certain conditions. The conditions imposed were to the following effect: The petitioner-A1 should surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of the order, failing which the order automatically stood cancelled; he should not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and the evidence and co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation; and that he should not go abroad without prior permission from the jurisdictional Court and he should surrender his passport before the said Court. The Bangalore Court also restricted the life of the bail order to two months from that day, leaving it open to the petitioner-A1 to approach the appropriate forum for seeking relief. Having surrendered before the Investigating Officer within the time stipulated, as directed, the petitioner-A1 filed Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2019 under Section 438 CrPC before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. However, by order dated 25.02.2019, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition. Perusal thereof reflects that the reasons cited for the dismissal were the nature, gravity and magnitude of the offence; the depth of the allegations; the quantum involved; and the fact that, if proved, the petitioner-A1 would be directly and vicariously liable. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, also took note of the prosecution's plea that if pre-arrest bail was granted, the petitioner-A1 would be shielded and the same would sabotage the effort to bring out the verifiable truth from him.