IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail can be granted when there is insufficient evidence to justify the arrest of the accused.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (New Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.416 of 2023 of I Town Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Perused the record.

4. A perusal of the record discloses that the written information of respondent No.2/de facto complainant was registered as Crime on 06.11. 2023. This written information itself discloses that the informant received a notice dated 03.05.2023 issued by a lawyer on behalf of the prime accused Sri Ravi Srinivasa Rao. The purport of the lawyer’s notice is about certain transactions concerning immovable properties which include agreements and Wills and some other documents. The said Sri Ravi Srinivasa Rao filed O.S.No.716 of 2023 before learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole. The said suit was laid as against three defendants. The prayer made therein is for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 29.08.1962 said to have been executed by the predecessors in interest of the de facto complainant. It is undisputed that on 08.05.2024 the said suit was not pressed and thus, that was dismissed. Record would further show that during investigation A.6 to A.10 were arrested and thereafter they were remanded to judicial custody. The investigation in this case is in progress.

5. The material facts indicate that Sri Ravi Srinivasa Rao with the help of document writers and others obtained old stamp papers of the year 1962 and created forged and fabricated documents depicting certain transactions and all that was done with a view to grab the properties of the de facto complainant. As seen earlier O.S.No.716 of 2023 was filed based on an agreement for sale dated 29.08.1962. It is in the context of these facts during the course of investigation from the arrested accused police recovered empty stamp papers, various stamps and other incriminating articles.

6. As per the case diary, Sri Ravi Srinivasa Rao, the prime accused was in prison and by way of a PT warrant his presence was secured and he was interrogated. According to the case diary, in the confession made by him he stated he got the empty Rs.5/- stamp paper of the year 1962 with the help of his friend Sri Popuri Srinivasa Rao and Manchikalapati Sambasiva Rao from a document writer at Narasaraopet. Thereafter he approached his friend Pappu Chandra Sekhar @ Chandra, builder Hari at Ongole and later as per the guidelines of lawyer Mudivarthi Raghava Rao they crated forged documents on 16 items of properties belonged to the de facto complainant and cheated her. Thus, in his confessional statement he made reference to the present petitioner stating that he was his friend. This confessional statement mentions the friendship and has not mentioned any other fact indicating the role of this petitioner in the alleged crime.

7. In the context of above facts, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail claiming innocence.

8. For respondents, it is stated that petitioner filed a quash petition in Crl.P.No.2210 of 2024 and the same is pending and petitioner is not innocent and his culpability is subject matter of investigation and he being a constable is likely to tamper with the evidence. It is for these reasons, they seek dismissal of the petition.

9. On considering the totality of the facts, the following aspects are to be stated: Nearly nine months ago F.I.R. was registered. Thus, best part of the investigation should have been completed. A.6 to A.10 were arrested. A perusal of their remand reports do not make any reference to this petitioner. F.I.R. does not indicate name of this petitioner.