Andhra Pradesh High Court - AmravatiPalugulla Rami Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 February, 2023THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI\n\n                Criminal Petition No.597 of 2023\n\nORDER :This Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail\n\nunderSection 438of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973\n\n('CrPC'), by petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.2 of 2023 of\n\nMakkuva Police Station, Parvathipuram, registered against the\n\npetitioner and one another for the offence punishable underSection 420r/w 34IPCalleging that the petitioner promised the\n\ncomplainant that he would get a job for the wife of the\n\ncomplainant in civil services and for that purpose he received a\n\ntotal amount of Rs.7,50,199/- credited to the account of his son\n\nstarting from the date 13.06.2015 to 04.01.2018, but he failed\n\nto fulfill the promise.2.    The de facto complainant sent similar complaint to the\n\nCommandant, 198 BNCRPF, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh,\n\non 11.06.2021 complaining the same. The petitioner submitted\n\na reply dated 22.07.2021 to the Commanding Officer denying\n\nthe allegation and if at all any money has been received by his\n\nson, he is no way connected to it and that the de facto\n\ncomplainant was also working with the petitioner.3.    The petitioner further stated in the reply that his son and\n\nthe de facto complainant approached when Rama Krishna to\n\nprovide a job and both of them, had given money to Rama2Crl.P.No.597 of 2023\n\nKrishna and in that connection, the de facto complainant\n\ntransferred the said amount to the son of the petitioner asking\n\nhim to transfer the same to Rama Krishna who in turn\n\ntransferred to the amount to the son of the petitioner, but did\n\nnot provide job.   The learned counsel for the petitioner, thus\n\nsubmitted that the petitioner is also a victim in the hands of the\n\nRama Krishna.      He further submitted that since the de facto\n\ncomplainant intends to recover the amount from the son of the\n\npetitioner, he planted the petitioner also in the offence just for\n\nthe purpose of coercively recovering of the amount as the\n\npetitioner is working as a government servant. He further\n\nsubmitted that the alleged offence is related to many years back\n\nand that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail or\n\nsuch he would put to hardship by losing the job.4.    The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that\n\nthe 2nd petitioner/de facto complainant is formally shown in the\n\npetition, but is not a necessary party and that it is only due to\n\nprocedure adopted in other matters where notice should go to\n\nthe de facto complainant, the same has been followed by\n\noverlook.5.    Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st\n\nrespondent submitted that since the offence punishable undersection 420IPC is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court3Crl.P.No.597 of 2023\n\nin Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another1.\n\nThe petitioner need not approach this Court seeking this\n\nrelief and he further stated that the investigation is still\n\npending.6.        In view of the fact that the decision of the Supreme\n\nCourt is squarely applicable to the present case, the\n\npolice are directed to follow the directions and guidelines\n\nof the Supreme Court in the decision in Arnesh Kumar's\n\ncase (Supra 1) without fail.          Giving such liberty to the\n\npetitioner to avail the benefit under Section 41A Cr.P.C.,\n\nthe petition is disposed of.7.        Accordingly, the petition is closed.Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall\nstand closed.____________________________\n                                      JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI\n\n\nDate : 07-02-2023\nASR1(2014) 8 SCC 273