ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by Petitioner/Accused No.8, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.382 of 2022 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 420, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The Prosecution's case is that A.1, who works as a Home Guard in Guduru, Nellore District, allegedly enticed the Complainant and other unemployed individuals under the guise of offering Home Guard positions for Rs.8,50,000/-. Leveraging his purported connections with authorities, A.1 obtained an advance payment of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Complainant, deposited in Axis Bank A/c.No.919010081368837 on 23.05.2022. Subsequently, A.1 claimed that A.2, an employee in the D.G.P., Office, would dispatch an official appointment order. On 21.06.2022, the Complainant received one appointment order confirming his selection as a Home Guard sent via WhatsApp from No.9493081690 to his mobile No.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. The Defacto Complainant subsequently filed a report, leading to the registration of a case against the accused concerning the aforementioned criminal activities.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that the complaint dated 15.07.2022, which served as the basis for the registered crime, as well as the subsequent remand report dated 19.07.2022 and the statements of Witnesses 1 to 4, do not mention the Petitioner's name at any juncture. The counsel emphasizes the absence of any indication of the Petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences. According to the counsel, the Petitioner has 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 Petitioner 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 Petitioner is not even remotely connected to any transaction alleged to form the basis of the said offence.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor filed a counter, denied the criminal Petition filed by the Petitioner, also filed the Investigating Officer’s affidavit and opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

5. I have heard both sides.

6. I have perused the material available on record.

7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra1 , the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down certain factors and parameters that must be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It further held as follows:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant, including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognisable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must