Criminal Petition No. 14378 of 2025 · High Court · 2025

Order

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by petitioner/A.13 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.207 of 2025 of Jaipur Police Station, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 316(5), 318(4) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Sections 66C, 66D, 65 of Information Technology Act.

2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by

the complainant- Smt. K. Srikala, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (TGSCSCL), Mancherial, wherein it is alleged that A.1, Sri T. Srinivas, Fair Price Shop Dealer and proprietor of M/s. Sumukh Agro Industries, Ramaraopet Village, Jaipur Mandal, in collusion with other accused, misappropriated Corporation funds to the tune of Rs.1,39,25,120/-. The said rice mill stands in the name of his wife, Smt. T. Shobha Rani-A.2. It is alleged that A.1 procured a total of 6,322 quintals of paddy by showing fictitious - 2 - land holdings in the names of his son, daughter-in-law, relatives, and the Incharge of DCMS (PPC), and fraudulently received payments from the Corporation. A.2 is said to have colluded with A.1 despite owning only 12 guntas of agricultural land. A.3 and A.4, the son and daughter-in-law of A.1 are alleged to have procured and sold large quantities of paddy in the names of various persons, thereby drawing substantial amounts. A.5, working as Incharge DCMS (PPC), allegedly transferred amounts from his bank account to A.1. Similarly, A.6 to A.10, who are relatives and associates of A.1, are alleged to have shown false land extents and drawn amounts towards paddy procurement without actual cultivation. It is further alleged that A.11, the Agricultural Officer, and A.12, the AEO Cluster Officer, failed to verify and update the crop details in the official records and colluded with the main accused. The petitioner herein, A.13, who is a transport contractor, is alleged to have facilitated for diversion of 6,322.80 quintals of paddy by issuing transport receipts to the miller. Thus, all the accused A.1 to A.13 are alleged to have fraudulently drawn an amount of Rs.1,39,25,120/- from the Civil Supplies Corporation. - 3 -

3. Heard Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the said offences and he is no way concerned with the alleged fraud committed by the other accused and that he has not diverted the alleged paddy and has not issued any transport receipt to A.1. In fact the receipts will be issued by PPC Incharge and after delivery of paddy, the rice miller acknowledges the same. Further, the allotment orders will be issued by the District Civil Supplies Officer to the PPC and also the Contractor. The role of the transport contractor is limited to the extent of arrangement of required number of vehicles at PPCs on day-to-day basis as per the allotment made and there is no scope for any illegal transportation of paddy to the rice mills. Further the petitioner is only a transport contractor and he is liable for loading and unloading the paddy into and from the trucks under proper acknowledgment from the concerned in-charges of Godowns/Rice millers/PPCs. Hence, petitioner is no way connected with this offence and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner. - 4 -

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter wherein it is stated that the petitioner is a transport contractor of Jaipur Mandal, engaged in transporting paddy to rice mills tagged by the Civil Supplies Corporation. It is alleged that he colluded with accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and facilitated fraudulent procurement of paddy under the PPC (Paddy Procurement Centre) at Narsingapur-Maddulapally. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are alleged to have purchased paddy at lower prices from Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh, in violation of Government rules, and transported the same to PPC Narsingapur-Maddulapally through the petitioner’s Lorries. It is further alleged that fake truck chits were issued in the name of the petitioner’s transport office, showing that the paddy was supplied from PPC Narsingapur-Maddulapally to M/s. Sumukh Agro Industries Rice Mill belonging to accused Nos.1 to 3, wherein A.1 is the managing partner, A.2 is the proprietor, and A.3 is also a managing partner. It is also submitted that the statements of the lorry drivers are yet to be recorded and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.13 may enable him to influence witnesses and manipulate evidence. It is alleged that A.1 to 13, with fraudulent intent, misused Government’s PPC scheme intended to provide Minimum - 5 - Support Price (MSP) to farmers during the Rabi season 2024-25, causing a loss of Rs.1.39 crores to the Government. The paddy illegally procured from other States and the misappropriated Government funds are yet to be recovered. It is further submitted registration case, petitioner/A.13 has been absconding and if anticipatory bail is granted, he may collude with accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and tamper with the evidence. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made and the material placed on record the main contention of petitioner herein is that the some of the accused have filed quash petition wherein this Court directed the police to serve Section 35(3) of BNSS notice and the petitioner herein is also entitled for the same relief. The petitioner is no way connected with the offence under Section 316(5) of BNS as there is no entrustment of property to the petitioner herein.

7. Going through the said contention, it is observed that the petitioner is involved in transporting the paddy. Further along with counter learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed receipts showing that he had given false receipts whereas the said - 6 - receipts are signed by the Centre in-charge. Considering the allegations against this petitioner and as is no entrustment of property to the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions : i. ii. iii. The petitioner/A.13 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Jaipur Police Station, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/A.13 on bail on his executing a personal bond Rs.25,000/- Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for the like sum each. (Rupees Twenty The petitioner/A.13 shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required. The petitioner/A.13 shall abide by other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of BNSS and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date : 14.11.2025 Rds - 7 - THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14378 OF 2025 DATE :14.11.2025 Rds