The court held that mere allegations under serious IPC sections do not negate the applicability of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. when lesser penalties are involved, allowing anticipatory bail.

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) to petitioner/A.2 in Crime No. 320 of 2023 of Pendurthy Rural police station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. In summary, the Prosecution alleges that Accused No. 1 approached the de facto complainant, claiming that Accused No. 3 possessed power of attorney from Accused No. 2 for a parcel of land measuring 7.744 square yards in Sy. No. 7-4A3C of Narava Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, using falsified documents. Acting as a mediator, A.1 facilitated an agreement to sell the land at Rs.1,50,00,000/- per acre to the de facto complainant and their associate, Kalvakota Sarath kumar. On 22.01.2020, a cheque of Rs.25,00,000/- was provided as advance payment to A.1. Subsequently, Kalvakota Sarath kumar transferred Rs.1,15,00,000/- in separate installments to A.1's account. Additionally, the de facto complainant transferred Rs.43,50,000/- and paid Rs.11,50,000/- in cash to A.1, totalling Rs.1,70,00,000/- in payments. However, it later emerged that the land in question belonged to APIIC, and the accused fabricated documents to falsely depict the land in Sy. No. 7-4A3D of APIIC as the land in Sy. No. 7-4A3C. Consequently, they deceived the de facto complainant and his associate by presenting fake documents. Based on the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, the current case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who has not engaged in any criminal activity; the Complainant failed to specify any particular offence or wrongdoing committed by the Petitioner in the complaint; the initiation of legal proceedings against the Petitioner is to be an abuse of the legal process, undertaken solely to harass and defame him; the complaint was filed with malicious and unlawful intentions, aiming to unlawfully acquire property that does not rightfully belong to the Defacto Complainant; the Petitioner owns landed property and has no intention of evading the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court and moreover, the Petitioner expresses readiness to fully cooperate with the investigation; consequently, the Petitioner prays to grant bail.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner on the ground that the investigation is not completed.

5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their contentions on par with the submissions presented in the Petition as well as in the report.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that except for the offence under section 467 of I.P.C. all the offences are punishable with imprisonment for seven years or less than seven years and section 467 of I.P.C. is added apart from other sections, where punishment provided is less than seven years and the investigation officer is required to summon the accused for investigation. Section 467 of the I.P.C. provides for a sentence of imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also fine; Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. puts certain restrictions upon the police to arrest an accused where the offence complained of attracts punishment for less than seven years. This Court finds substantial force in the submission of the Petitioner’s counsel that merely mentioning a penal section in the complaint to register the F.I.R. under Section 467 IPC is insufficient to preclude the scope of Section 41A Cr.P.C.

7. Considering the submissions made, now this Court is inclined to consider whether section 467 of I.P.C. has been added merely to make out a case against the Accused.

8. According to the grounds stated in the Petitioner's bail application, it is asserted that the Petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) in favour