Anticipatory bail may be denied when there are specific allegations that the applicants facilitated a fraud or conspiracy, even if they did not directly receive the proceeds of the crime.

: ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.33 of 2026 of Tallagurijala Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Mancherial District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case are that on 01.04.2026 at about 20:30 hours, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that he was induced by Konga Srinivas and Badikala Thirupathi to purchase agricultural land admeasuring about 10.25 acres in Sy.No.213 situated at Budhakalan Shivar area, allegedly belonging to one Rampelli Ganesh. Believing the representations and after verifying certain documents, the complainant agreed to purchase about 4 acres of the said land for a total consideration and paid an amount of Rs.31,80,000/- in instalments, including advance and subsequent payments. However, when he later attempted to proceed with registration, discrepancies arose in the land records and Aadhaar details, upon which it was revealed that the said “Rampelli Ganesh” was in fact an impersonator, namely Lasetti Sathish, and that the accused persons had conspired to create fake identity and land documents to cheat him. It is thus alleged that the accused persons, dishonestly induced the complainant and cheated him to a tune of Rs.31,80,000/-. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the said persons, basing on which the present crime is registered against the accused.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case, as there are no specific allegations against them except the alleged confession of A.1. It is contended that the de facto complainant himself entered into a land transaction after verifying the documents and later discovered that the seller was an impersonator, and the present petitioners have been unnecessarily roped in during investigation. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners neither received any amount from the complainant nor participated in the alleged transaction, and there is no material to show their involvement in creating forged documents or committing any offence of forgery or cheating. It is also contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including forgery, conspiracy, and common intention, are not made out against the petitioners. The investigation has substantially progressed, several witnesses have already been examined, and the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioners herein are also key persons in the commission of this offence. They have conspired, created fake documents, forged and impersonated as the subject land belongs to A.1. The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature, as such, they are not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and the material placed on record, the petitioners herein are A.3 and A.4. Though learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that no amount is transfer