Anticipatory bail may be denied when the accused is alleged to have played a key role in serious offences involving the forgery of official documents and impersonation to facilitate property fraud.

: ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.241 of 2026 of Keesara Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The facts of the case are that, on 16.03.2026, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she is the owner and possessor of an open plot admeasuring 342 square yards situated in Survey Nos.54 to 62 of Mahalaxmi Colony, Bandlaguda, having purchased the same under Document No.3931 of 1988. It is alleged that when she recently intended to sell the said plot and verified the Encumbrance Certificate, she found that the property had been registered in the name of one K. Deepa under Document No.11474 of 2022 through Mandadi Satheesh. On further enquiry, she came to know that the said Mandadi Satheesh had allegedly created a false death certificate in the name of her husband Appa Rao and falsely showed Deepa as their daughter instead of their real daughter, Manasa, and thereby got the property registered in Deepa’s name. Further the said Satheesh again registered the same property in the name of Jonnalagadda Manikanta under Document No.12058 of 2022 by using forged and fabricated documents. Hence, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action against the accused persons.

3. Heard Sri K.Ravikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that neither the complaint nor the remand case diary discloses any specific or independent overt act against him. It is alleged that the prosecution allegations mainly concern the acts of A.1 and A.4, while the petitioner’s name is mentioned only as an alleged recipient of money, without assigning any independent criminal role. He also contended that the alleged offences relate to fabrication of fake death certificates, forged family member certificates, and fraudulent execution of sale deeds bearing Document Nos.11474 of 2022 and 12058 of 2022, but no role is attributed to the petitioner in the preparation, execution, or registration of any forged document. It is also contended that the petitioner is not shown as a vendor, vendee, witness, or in any other capacity in the said sale deeds or registration records relating to the subject property. The allegation that A.1 paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner is stated to be baseless and unsupported by any bank transaction records, recovery of cash, documentary proof, or other corroborative material. Learned counsel also contended that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of alleged confession statements of the co-accused, which have no evidentiary value. It is further contended that the de facto complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner to harass him, though there is no material connecting him with the alleged offence. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is nece