IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE: T.CH.SURYA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3772 & 3796 of 2004 Crl.P.No. 3772 of 2004: Between: Smt. Ch.Sri Vani. Petitioner (Accused in Cr.No.241/2004 of P.S.Visakhapatnam, City-III Town (L&O), Police Station ) AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (Through P.S. Visakhapatnam City-III Town L&O Police Station). . Respondent/ Complainant Petition under Section 438 of Crl.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated therewith, the High Court will be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein/Accused No.1 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime in FIR.No. 241/2004 of P.S. Visakhapatnam City III Town ( L&O) Police Station, Visakhapatnam, in the interests of justice. The Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and Grounds filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. Crl.P.No. 3796 of 2004: Between: K.Chandrasekhar. Petitioner (Accused in Cr.No.241/2004 of P.S.Visakhapatnam, City-III Town (L&O), Police Station ) AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (Through P.S. Visakhapatnam City-III Town L&O Police Station). . Respondent/ Complainant Petition under Section 438 of Crl.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated therewith, the High Court will be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein/Accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime in FIR.No. 241/2004 of P.S. Visakhapatnam City III Town ( L&O) Police Station, Visakhapatnam, in the interests of justice. The Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and Grounds filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following ORDER: “ Both these petitioners arose out of the same crime, and therefore, they can be disposed of together. ..2.. The petitioners therein are A1 and A3 in the crime. They seek anticipatory bail in connection with the crime registered against them under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a case where the mother-in-law lodged a complaint against the daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law and her husband, that is the son of the defacto-complainant, are the partners of the firm, A.V.Tele Services. On the promise that A-1 in the crime, ie., the daughter-in-law resigned from the partnership, and then surprisingly, issued a cheque in favour of A-3 towards the discharge of the loan taken by the firm A.V.Tele Services from A-3, she lodged a complaint with the police, who registered the case as aforesaid, under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. On a prima facie consideration, the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC has not been attracted. In that view of the matter, the request of the petitioners for anticipatory bail, may be considered. In the result, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest, on each one of them executing a bond for Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each, to the satisfaction of the SHO, Visakhapatnam III Town (L&O) Police Station. On such release, they shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation.” ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1. The SHO, Visakhapatnam III Town (L&O) Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Hyd(OUT) 3. One CC to Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, Advocate (OPUC) 5. One spare copy. SAH