IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anticipatory bail – Attitude of arresting first and then proceeding with rest is despicable – Law presumes an Accused to be innocent until his guilt is proven.
(2) Anticipatory bail – Bail is rule and jail is exception – Apart from power to arrest, police officers must be able to justify reasons – No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of offence made against a person.

ORDER (COMMON)

Since these three Criminal Petitions are filed, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking anticipatory bail, by different Accused i.e. Crl.P.No.6390 of 2024 (arrayed as A.14), Crl.P.No.6553 of 2024 (arrayed as A.6), and Crl.P.No.6389 of 2024 (arrayed as A.13), in same crime viz. Crime No.382 of 2022 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur District, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order.

2. A case has been registered against the Petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 420, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

3. In summary, the Prosecution asserts that this case involves allegations of cheating, forgery of documents, forgery of signatures, and criminal intimidation, which took place prior to 15.07.2022, at 2:00 PM, at Venus Hotel, Mangalagiri. The complaint was lodged on 15.07.2022, where the complainant stated that A.1, a Home Guard employee from Guduru, Nellore District, assured him of a Home Guard position in exchange for Rs.8,50,000/-. Consequently, the complainant transferred Rs.4,00,000/- to Axis Bank Account No. 919010081368837 on 23.05.2022. Subsequently, A.1 claimed that A.2, an employee in the DGP Office, would dispatch an official appointment order confirming his selection as a Home Guard and sent via WhatsApp from 9493081690 to his mobile number (6300252160). However, it was later revealed that the appointment order was a fake. Upon discovering the deception, the complainant contacted A.1 to request a refund, but A.1 not only declined but also issued threats of severe consequences. Allegedly, A.1 and A.2 orchestrated a scheme involving the creation of counterfeit appointment orders bearing forged signatures of police officials, through which they defrauded the complainant and other unemployed individuals. A.6’s involvement in the offence stems from A.11 transferring Rs.1,11,15,000/- to the accounts of A.4, Petitioner/A.6, A.5, and A.7 from phone No. 9610836108. Additionally, A.13 and A.14 were named in the F.I.R. via a memo dated 20.01.2024, indicating that they received a sum from A.9, as directed by A.3, as part of their share in the alleged offence.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.6, A.13 and A.14 in all the three petitions 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. According to the counsel, the Petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the present crime and is unjustly under suspicion by the Respondent officials. It is vehemently asserted that the F.I.R., lacks the most basic elements to establish any criminal offence against the Petitioners on a prima facie basis. The counsel contends that the allegations in the complaint primarily pertain to a civil dispute and do not, in any way, substantiate the commission of a criminal offence as claimed. It is asserted that the Petitioners are not even remotely connected to any transaction alleged to form the basis of the offence under Section 467 IPC.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing Respondent/State vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners on the ground that the investigation is not completed.

6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their contentions on par with the s