IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE: P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4630 of 2010 Between: Kunchaparthi Murali, S/o. Pullaiah. Petitioner/Accused AND The State of A.P., through SHO, P.S (III) Town, Khammam, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad. Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated therewith, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 92/2010 on the file of PS (III) Town, Khammam. The Petition coming on for hearing and upon perusing the petition and grounds filed in Crl.P. and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following ORDER: “ The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 421 & 422 IPC. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The allegation against the petitioner, accused, is of taking finance facility from the de facto complainant bank to a tune of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees eighty lakhs only) by giving collateral security apart from security of stock in trade/goods. 4. As per the complaint, on a particular day, when the staff of the complainant bank inspected the business premises of the petitioner, stocks were not found and further the petitioner got a collusive suit filed for the property that is given as security to the bank. Thus, the bank is cheated by the petitioner. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the particular day when the staff of the bank inspected the business premises of the petitioner, stock might not have been there as stocks were sold, but now fresh stocks are available. With regard to partition suit for the property that is given as security to the bank, learned counsel contends that the suit is filed by none other than the daughter of the petitioner and the petitioner would make efforts to get the same withdrawn so that any apprehension of property being not available as security is removed. 6. In the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested till 30-06-2010, by which time, he shall get the suit filed for the property that is given as security to the bank withdrawn. 7. Call on 30-06-2010.” ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ..2.. To 1. The III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam. 2. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. 3. The SHO, P.S. (III) Town, Khammam. 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 5. One CC to Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 6. One spare copy. SAH HIGH COURT PSRJ DATED: 11-06-2010 NOTE: CALL ON 30-06-2010 ORDER CRL.P.NO. 4630 OF 2010 DIRECTION DRAFTED BY: SAH APPROVED BY: DRAFTED ON: 11-06-2010 HIGH COURT PSRJ DATED: 11-06-2010 NOTE: CALL ON 30-06-2010 ORDER CRL.P.NO. 4630 OF 2010 DIRECTION