The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of allegations in anticipatory bail applications, balancing the rights of the accused with public interest, and clarified that locus standi is not a barrier in criminal complaints.

ORDER :

(T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.)

1. The petitioners/A. 1 to A. 4 have filed the Criminal Petition, as per Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) seeking anticipatory bail concerning Crime No.219 of 2023 registered at the Rajahmundry II Town Police Station of East Godavari District.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C.").

3. Heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 to A.4, as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2/defacto complainant. Additionally, respondent No.2/defacto complainant has been included as party respondent by the order dated 14.12.2023 in I.A. No.02 of 2023.

4. In brief, the prosecution case is that the defacto complainant lodged a report stating that A.1, A.2 and A.4 have approached one Vemuri Indira Devi, who is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant and borrowed Rs.1.50 Crores by mortgaging plot admeasuring 977 Sq. Yards in Sy. No.385, situated at Rajahmundry. The plot was owned by A.1, and the loan amount was transferred to his account on 06.12.2017. The plot was purchased by A.1 from his father-in-law (A.2) by a registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.2017. A.1 paid interest up to February 2020. After that, he could not pay the interest or the principal. Then, A.1 wanted to sell the plot to discharge the loan, but he could not sell it immediately. After that, the defacto complainant and his wife decided to buy the plot and made a payment of Rs.2,05,17,000/- through a cheque bearing No.011492 dated 09.02.2022 to A.1. After receiving the payment from them, A.1 and A.4 repaid the loan principal and interest to the defacto complainant's mother-in-law and requested her for the re-conveyance of the mortgaged property, this led to execution of the re-conveyance of the mortgaged property on 25.02.2022. Immediately, A.1 transferred the said property in the name of the defacto complainant's wife on 25.02.2022.

(a) Furthermore, it is asserted that when the defacto complainant and his wife tried to sell the said property in February 2023, they found that they were cheated by the accused as one of the potential buyers had obtained the Encumbrance Certificate and alerted them. The defacto complainant came to know through the Encumbrance Certificate that A.2 had cancelled the earlier Sale Deed in favour of A.1 during the subsistence of the Mortgage, and having the knowledge that he has no right over the said property and sold the same to defacto complainant's wife.

(b) It is further asserted that all the accused conspired together and executed a Cancellation Deed regarding Sale Deed standing in the name of A.1 vide Cancellation Deed dated 07.07.2018, and the said documents are fabricated by forgery and mischief.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners/accused contends that all the documents referred in the complaint are Registered Sale Deeds executed by the concerned persons only, and the question of forgery does not arise; A.2 to A.4 have no transactions either with the complainant or other persons; A.3 has nowhere figured in the complaint except that he is a witness to the Cancellation Deed, as such, witness cannot be made arrayed as an accused; the loan taken by A.1 was discharged before the execution of the Reconveyance deed by the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant.

6. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Defacto complainant filed written submissions wherein it is contended that the offences alleged against the petitioners/accused are various in nature and the mode and manner employed by the accused in the commission of crime depicts a classic case of cheating and committing forgery of documents. It is further contended that A.1 to A.4 had entered into a criminal conspiracy and have