*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR +CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9694 OF 2009 %Dated 18-11-2009 Crl. P. No. 9694 of 2009 #K. Harshavardhan, S/o.Late Ganga Raju, Aged about 44 years, Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Guntur, R/o.H.No.3-4-174/AF/23, Ambience Fort, Attapur, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. .... PETITIONER VERSUS $The State of A.P. Through A.C.B., City Range, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Standing Counsel, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri G.V.L.Murthy ^ Counsel for Respondent. : Standing Counsel for A.C.B. < GIST : > HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9694 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/ACB-CR-1 of 2009 of ACB City Range-I, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent. This Court by order dated 14-11-2009 granted interim bail to the petitioner till 17-11-2009 mainly for the reason that his regular bail petition was posted before the learned Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred as ‘Special Judge’) on 17- 11-2009 and it is subject to the following conditions : 1) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, 2) He shall not deal with any bank transactions until further orders, 3) He shall not meddle with the bank lockers or bank accounts in the meanwhile, and shall handover the keys of all bank lockers to the Investigating Officer, if not already handed over, 4) He shall make himself available to the Investigating Officers concerned as and when required, 5) He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other Police Officer, 6) He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court, and 7) He shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, Hyderabad. The learned Special Judge by his order dated 17-11-2009 in Criminal M.P. No.1735 of 2009 dismissed the bail (Regular bail) petition filed by the petitioner. Though this Court granted interim bail to the petitioner till 17-11- 2009 or till passing orders by learned Special Judge, the petitioner did not appear before the Special Judge before or after passing of orders in his bail petition on 17-11-2009 on the pretext that he was admitted in hospital (N.I.M.S., Hyderabad). It is specifically mentioned by this Court in the above referred order dated 14-11-2009 that non compliance or violation of any of the conditions would result in automatic cancellation of the bail. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is in possession of total assets worth Rs.1,31,36,700/- (Rupees one crore thirty one lakhs thirty six thousand seven hundred only) in his name and in the name of his dependents and family members, the total income of petitioner including salary income of his wife is calculated at Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) and the likely expenditure is estimated at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) and as such the likely savings of petitioner is arrived at Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) and thus the petitioner could not account satisfactorily for an amount of Rs.1,06,36,700/- (Rupees one crore six lakhs thirty six thousand seven hundred only). It is also alleged that the petitioner is in possession of 14 items of immovable properties which includes houses, house plots and agricultural lands and an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) to his credit in various bank accounts. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has complied with the order in Criminal Petition (SR) No.33854 of 2009 of this Court? The order passed by the Special Judge dated 17-11-2009 shows that the petitioner did not handover the locker keys till the orders are passed on 17-11-2009. Moreover, it was represented that the locker keys are lost. When the Special Judge specifically questioned him as to whether any compliant was made by the petitioner to that effect, the Counsel for the petitioner could not give proper reply. When, it was represented that the petitioner was suffering from ill- health, this Court had taken a lenient view and granted him interim bail on 14- 11-2009 however, subject to certain specific conditions. When he is released as per the orders of this Court, he ought to have complied with the conditions of said orders immediately. In a case of this nature, bank lockers may provide very important incriminating material. When a specific direction was given to the petitioner to hand over the locker keys and when it is specifically averred that non compliance of the orders would automatically result in cancellation of the orders, the petitioner ought to have handed over the locker keys to the investigating officer. The petitioner did not file any memo before Special Judge as to why and under what circumstances he could not hand over the locker keys to the investigating officer. While arguing this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that locker keys have been lost. No such averment is made in the grounds of this bail petition. No one should be allowed to take advantage of the orders of the Court, no one should be allowed to float the orders of the Court. In view of the clear violations of the directions of this Court in not handing over the locker keys to the Investigating Officer and in not giving any proper explanation for not handing over the locker keys to the investigating officer, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the discretionary remedy of anticipatory bail. The Judge who has to accept the sureties should accept the sureties only after due verification as to whether the petitioner complied with the conditions of the order or not i.e. whether the sureties are genuine or not, whether solvency certificates are genuine or not. There should be no hurry or half hearted verification. For example in a case where in the bail order contains a condition that the petitioner should deposit passport. The sureties should not be accepted till the passport is deposited. Similarly, in case of direction to deposit locker keys no release order should be issued unless the locker keys are deposited or proper explanation has been given for non compliance of such direction. In this case, when there is a direction to deposit the locker keys and when such direction is not complied with, it is clear that the petitioner tried to take advantage of the orders of interim bail. Moreover, the allegations made against the petitioner are serious, the investigation is at the initial stage. There is every danger of tampering with evidence if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. In view of the same, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary remedy of anticipatory. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 18-11-2009. Note: Mark L.R. Copy. DSH