Court granted anticipatory bail, finding insufficient evidence for the allegations of coercion and fraud, emphasizing the principle of a fair trial and ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNS S'), seeking anticipatory bail with respect to offences under Sections 318 (4), 329(3), and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNS ') registered under Crime No.272 of 2025 on the file of the Cyberabad Police Station, RGI Airport.

2. The petitioners herein are arraigned as A1 to A4.

3. The de facto complainant has lodged a complaint on 04.04.2025 alleging that he was induced to enter into an agreement for the purchase of property belonging to A1, for which, on 14.03.2025, he paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) in cash as token advance on the understanding that a necessary agreement would be executed. However, no such agreement has come to be executed. The de facto complainant sought a refund of the aforesaid amount. On the pretext of repaying the same, the accused called upon the de facto complainant to meet them on 04.04.2025 at Chidiga New Bridge, at Kakinada, wherein he was forced to sign a couple of stamped blank white papers, and an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) was forcibly taken from the de facto complainant. He was further threatened with life in case the balance amount was insisted upon. Based on the aforesaid complaint, the present Crime has been registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A4 submits that it is an admitted fact that the property which is in issue is in possession of A1, which was purchased by him from A3 and A4 long back. However, as alleged in the complaint there was never any such understanding for the sale of the property. It is only a counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the A1, one Ganji Ambedkar, vide Cr.No.158 of 2025 on 26.02.2025 for the offences under Sections 329 (3) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNS , 2023”) and there is no privity between these two parties.

5. Further, learned counsel contends that even assuming the allegations as referred in the complaint, which is exomatic, that a cash amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid, there is no proof regarding payment of such cash, and any allegations made therein are completely false and frivolous.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail. He contends that, so far, five witnesses have been examined and all the accused i.e., A1 to A11 are absconding, and granting of anticipatory bail at this stage, when crime is under on-going investigation, is not warranted.

7. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant reiterated the submissions made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

8. Perused the record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A4, learned counsel for the de facto complainant, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

9. It is an admitted fact that the property belongs to A1, which was purchased from A3 and A4 long back. As per the complaint, the allegation is that the A1 has offered the sale of property to the de facto complainant, for which an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was advanced as token amount on the assurance that a necessary agreement of sale would be executed. Further, as no such agreement came to be executed, the complainant sought refund of the same.

10. The complaint, though it refers to the payment of Rs.50,00,000/- in cash, which may be illegal or impermissible, the same may be a matter for investigation. However, except his sole submission, there is no other material to show that the de facto complainant possessed such a huge amount of cash or the source of such amount.

11. The de facto complainant appears to have filed the complaint without even issuing any notice calling upon A1 to refund the same, if at