M.S.K. Jaiswal, J. - (1.) THE petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.5 in Cr. No. 122 of 2015 on the file of P.S. CCS, Team -I, Hyderabad, registered under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 read with 120 -B of IPC.
(2.) THE brief facts are as under: - "Pasumarthy Venu Madha is a non -resident Indian. He started M/s. Material Software System India (P) Limited and M/s. Material Soft Information Technologies, for software development, and both were situated in Hyderabad. The non -petitioner/K. Shanthan Kumar was the Administration & Finance In -charge and he was made responsible to oversee the entire operations of the two companies and report the developments to Venu Madha. Necessary documents were executed by Venu Madhav authorizing the non -petitioner/A.1 to operate the two bank accounts of the companies viz., Karnataka Bank at Dilsukhnagar and Vijaya Bank at Basheerbagh. A.2 is the wife of A.1, A.3 is the brother of A.2, A.4 is the brother -in -law of Venu Madhav and said to be a resident of USA, and A.5 is the Auditor and Chartered Accountant for the two establishments. On 20 -05 -2015 Venu Madhav filed complaint alleging that the non -petitioner/A.1 has indulged in several acts of omission and commission and embezzlement and caused huge loss to the complainant to a tune of about Rs. 40 crores. It is the case of the complainant that he has invested about Rs. 20 crores in the business and more than Rs. 8 crores were drawn by A.1 from different banks by mortgaging the properties of the complainant. Approximately Rs. 2.50 crores were received by the Company from the customers. In the complaint, the detailed narration of events about the investment and the expenditure and amount alleged to have been fraudulently misappropriated are mentioned. The purport thereof is that by making incorrect payments and drawing huge amounts in the names of himself and his relations by manipulating the accounts, fraud is perpetrated by A.1." Since the present petition is by A.5, what is required to be seen is as to what is the specific allegation against him in the comprehensive complaint filed by the complainant.
(3.) AFTER detailed analysis of the acts of the non -petitioner/A.1, the specific allegation against the petitioner/A.5 is that A.5 was appointed by A.1 as Auditor and A.5 was part of the conspiracy for defrauding the complainant by manipulating the accounts. The Chartered Accountant facilitated A.1 in falsifying the Company records unsupported by the documents and diverting funds in the account of A.1's wife. It is further alleged that the Company Auditor (A.5) did not divulge the detailed accounts despite repeated requests from his side.;