Anticipatory bail may be denied when there are serious prima facie allegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, and impersonation intended to fraudulently transfer property.

: 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.687 of 2025 of Ghatkesar Police Station, Rachakonda District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 335 , 336, 340(2), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 322 and 61(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 31.12.2025 at about 17:30 hours, the complainant, Dr. P. Vani, a retired Government Doctor lodged a complaint stating that her late father, P. Venkateshwarlu, had purchased Plot Nos.110 and 111 admeasuring 533 square yards in Survey No.153/A, situated at Patel Nagar, Ghatkesar, under Sale Deed No.3309/1982 dated 02.08.1982, and ever since then the complainant has been in peaceful possession of the said property. It is alleged that on 21.12.2025, at about 09:20 hours, three unknown persons came to her house, enquired about her, and after she refused to sell the plots, they left after giving a phone number. Thereafter, on 27.12.2025, when the complainant visited the plots, she found newly erected boundary stones placed illegally by unknown persons. On obtaining an Encumbrance Certificate from the Sub-Registrar Office, Ghatkesar, she came to know that two sale deeds had been fraudulently registered without her knowledge, i.e., Sale Deed No.4977/2025 dated 28.06.2025 and Sale Deed No.7953/2025 dated 06.12.2025. The prosecution alleges that the accused persons, namely Gowlikar Rajendra Prasad and others, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, fabricated forged documents including a false Special Power of Attorney bearing File No.4469/IMP/2025 dated 16.06.2025, impersonated the complainant, and executed fraudulent sale deeds, thereby cheated the complainant, causing wrongful loss to her and wrongful gain to themselves. Hence, the complaint.

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/A.3 is that the petitioner is innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. The learned counsel further submits that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, therefore the police ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, instead of attempting to arrest the petitioner without proper notice or enquiry. It is also contended that under the guise of present crime the respondent police are making efforts to arrest the petitioner and there is apprehension of harassment, which would cause hardship to his family, as he is the sole breadwinner. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and belongs to a respectable family, he is ready to cooperate with the investigation, and shall 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 petitioner along with other accused are involved in real estate business. The petitioner and A.1 knowing that the owner of subject plots is not visiting since long time, they hatched a plan to create the documents and impersonated Lw.1 by A.2 and created one SPA document to A.1 and sold to A.4 vide sale deed document No.4977/2025 and A.8 and A.9 acted as witnesses to t