IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE: K. G. SHANKAR CRL.P. Nos. 4072 and 4073 OF 2014
CRL.P.NO. 4072 and 4073 OF 2014:
Between:
Ms. Pushpam Appalanaidu D/o Appalanaidu, Occ: Business, Basement Floor, The Rain Tree Place No.7 McNichols Road, Road, Chetpet, Chennai - 6000031 Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 & 2 in both the petitions (in Cr No. 37 of 2008 on the file of II Town P.S., Kavali, Nellore District & in Cr. No. 167 of 2008 on the file of Mahankali P.S., Hyderabad. ) AND State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Respondent/Respondent in both the petitions COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IN BOTH THE PETITIONS :
Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel rep. on behalf Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS :
The Public Prosecutor
CRL.P.NO. 4072 OF 2014:
Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail pending investigation, enquiry and trial into Crime No. 37 of 2008 of II Town Police Station, Kavali, Nellore District.
CRL.P.NO. 4073 OF 2014:
Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 167 of 2008 of Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER (Contd. 2. ) . 2 .
Common Order:
“These two petitions are disposed of through this common order as the petitioner is one and the same in both the petitions, albeit in respect of different crimes and for distinct reliefs. In Criminal Petition No.4072 of 2014, the petitioner as accused No.4 in Crime No.37 of 2008 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kavali, Nellore District seeks for grant of bail. In Crl.P.No.4073 of 2014, the petitioner as accused No.2 in Crime No.167 of 2008 o f Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad seeks for grant of anticipatory bail. Basically, the allegations of both the cases are one and the same. It therefore is convenient to dispose of both the petitions through this common order.
2. The petitioner is said to be the Managing Director of Gold Quest International Private Limited as well as the Managing Director of Quest Net Enterprises India Private Limited. A complaint was lodged by one Swarna Vasantha Lakshmi against Kunchala Srihari, K.Venkateswarlu and G.Mallyadri as well as M/s. Quest Net Enterprises India Private Limited. Mallyadri is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.37 of 2008 of II Town Police Station, Kavali, whereas the petitioner being the Managing Director of Quest Net Enterprises India Private Limited is accused No.4. It was alleged that Srihari, Venkateswarlu and accused No.1 represented to the complainant and others about Gold Quest International Private Limited and induced them to pay Rs.33,000/- to become a member of the Scheme. It was further alleged that while the complainant paid Rs.33,000/-, one Arunasri paid Rs.66,000/- and that as both of them did not reap the results as promised, they complained that the accused committed cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC.
3. A similar complaint was lodged by one S.Radha Krishna before Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad against Challa Trinath and Quest Net Enterprises India Private Limited. The complaint was registered as First Information Report in Crime No.167 of 2008.
The petitioner, being the Managing Director of Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., is arrayed as accused No.2.
(Contd. 3. ) . 3 .
4. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submitted that M/s. Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., started a Multi Level Marketing System in all earnest. The Company is engaged in direct selling business of multi level or network marketing. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the nature of the business activity of the petitioner has not been barred by any Indian Law. While so, in Crime No.167 of 2008 on the file of Mahankali Police Station, case was registered not only under Section 420 IPC but also under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (the Act, for short). It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that neither the offence under Section 420 IPC nor the offences under the Act are made out against the petitioner.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as Crime No.37 of 2008 is concerned, the petitioner was arrested on 14-3-2014 and that the petitioner has not been arrested in connection with Crime No.167 of 2008. The petitioner consequently filed application seeking for bail in respect of Crime No.37 of 2008 whereas she filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail so far as Crime No.167 of 2008 is concerned.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.10405 of 2014 and 10535 of 2014. In both the writ petitions, petitioner No.2 is the petitioner herein, whereas the 1st petitioner is either M/s. Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd., or M/s. Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.
A learned Single Judge of this Court passed interim directions that all complaints made in respect of Crime No.37 of 2008 shall be treated as additional statements of witnesses whereas all complaints in connection with Crime No.119 of 2008 shall be treated as additional statements in Crime No.119 of 2008. Crime No.119 of 2008 on the file of IV Town Police Station, Nellore is not the subject matter in the present criminal petitions.
In Crl.P.No.4072 of 2014, bail is sought in Crime No.37 of 2008. Crime No.37 of 2008 is the subject matter of W.P.No.10405 of 2014.
(Contd. 4. ) . 4.
7. It is the case of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that various members of the Scheme have filed complaints against the Company and against the petitioner at various places and Police proposed to register various cases against the petitioner in respect of the same issue. The petitioner consequently approached this Court and obtained orders in the two writ petitions. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Malaysian National and that her Passport has already been taken possession of by a Court at Chennai. The petitioner admittedly is involved in cases in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. As much as Rs.108 Crores of money is involved in these cases, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor however submitted that Rs.180 Crores is involved in the cases and that as many as 60,000 persons were duped by the petitioner and her Company. He further contended that as many as 250 persons have been working as independent members of the Company to help the petitioner in duping gullible public. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no intention for the petitioner to dupe the members of the Scheme and that the bona fides of the petitioner are patent from the fact that each of the members was delivered a gold coin worth Rs.18,000/- as soon as the person joined as a member of the Scheme. I do not consider that this is the stage to go into the niceties of the case. The question is whether it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage or otherwise.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are 65 accused in this case including several Directors of the Company and that barring for 4 accused, none of the other persons is available for arrest or for interrogation. He submitted that the investigation is in progress to fathom the modalities of the Company including the circumstances in which the Company came into existence. He also pointed out that the petitioner was arrested at Chennai Airport while she was attempting to slip away from India. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Company of the petitioner opened 33 Accounts in ICICI Bank in various parts of Andhra Pradesh and have collected monies from gullible public and have been siphoning the same into the private coffers of the petitioner with an intention to cheat.
(Contd. 5. ) . 5 .
10. The magnitude of the offence is quite considerable. This being an economic offence of high magnitude, liberal view cannot be taken in favour of the petitioner. At the same time, the petitioner is a lady. Added to it, her Passport has already been taken possession of by a Court at Chennai. The petitioner has been in Jail since 14-3-2014. I do not consider it appropriate to refuse bail to the petitioner on the ground that other accused have not been apprehended so far. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is not expected to interfere with the investigation. From the very fact that the petitioner is not an Indian National and has been in Jail since 14-3-2014 it would appear that the petitioner may not be in a position to influence witnesses and the investigation in the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail.
11. In view of these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crl.P.No.4072 of 2014 and on anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.4073 of 2014. Keeping the magnitude of the offence in mind, I consider it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail on terms only.
12. The petitioner accordingly is enlarged on bail in Crime No.37 of 2008 of II Town Police Station, Kavali on a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. She shall subsequently surrender before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad within 2 (two) weeks after she is enlarged on bail by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. The learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad shall enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.167 of 2008 on such surrender on a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum to his satisfaction. After her release in both the cases, the petitioner shall stay at Chennai and shall not leave Chennai without prior permission of the Court except on (Contd. 6. ) . 6 .
those days when she has to attend the two Courts in connection with the cases. The petitioner shall appear b e fo re Chetpet Police Station, Chennai on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 09.00 a.m. and 06.00 p.m., until further orders. Both the criminal petitions are allowed accordingly.”
//TRUE COPY// To ASSISTANT REGISTRAR for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.
2. The XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
3. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kavali, Nellore District.
4. The Station House Officer, Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad.
5. The Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Nellore.
6. The Station House Officer, Chetpet Police Station, Chennai.
7. The Superintendent, District Jail, Vijayawada, Krishna Ditrict.
8. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT)
9. One CC to Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)
10. One Spare copy BV HIGH COURT DR. KGS.J DATED: 17-04-2014 BAIL ORDER CRL.P.NOS. 4072 AND 4073 OF 2014 BAIL GRANTED DRAFTED: BY BV DATED : 17-04-2014 HIGH COURT DR. KGS.J DATED: 17-04-2014 BAIL ORDER CRL.P.NOS. 4072 AND 4073 OF 2014 BAIL GRANTED