TWO THC)U`sAitD AND TWENTY FIVE :~pRESENT: IL SBetween : \- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH RED CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1495 OF 2024 aplf 1. Ramapuram Rajashekair, `|S`/o.'R. Srinivasulu, Aged 50 years, R/o.17- 115, Main Road, B., Kothakota Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. { 2. R. Gautham, S/o. R. Rajasekhar, Aged 22 years, R/o.17-115, Main Road, B. Kothakota Villa€`ge\and MandaI, Chittoor District. ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 Li:,I- tAND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Ainaravati -i -A ...Respondent I...#.. petition under section -4'38-`fo`f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum .of`+gf6'innds fI'led in Support Of the CrimI'naI Petition,; the High Court may be pleased,{`-t¢l`release the petitioner/accused No.1 & 2 oni bail in the event of their arr6s'i. in connection with cr.No.111/2013 of B Kothakota Police Station, ChittQOr.`District. The PetI'tl'On COming Oh':z`-for:`h6aring, upon perusI'ng the Petition and the''i memorandum of grounds fil-afd in support thereof and upon hearI-ng the -`--i?LS..-,-_. arguments of SRI BALAIAH P'Advocate for the petitioner, and of puBLIC[ PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent; -.~ _\ `-: •{_` \'ti I :..9_-_!;`i.- -`'`.'£-,i;=3..`` `= ` + --'| ,J \ `-i ,\ ` ` 1* . `_ | .I;-- .-fi ' ...Tf APHCO10115162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY '£B!_MINAL PETITION NO: 1495/2024 Between : Ramapuram RaJ-aShekar and another AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(s): 1. BALAIAH B [3239] .HPETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ".RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) - The Court made the following ORDER: A.1 and A.2 in CrI-me No.111 of 2013 on the file of B.Kothakota Police Station, ChI|ttOOr District, filed the present petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticI'PatOry bail. The said crime was initially registered for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120-B I/w 34 IPC- € fin 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that subsequently Section 3(2)(v) o-i the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also included in the Present Crime. 3. Case of the prosecution iS that 2nd respondent filed a Private complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle against the petitioners herein stating that h'ls father G.K.Bharath and his father'S Sister by name Dr. G.Bramaharani succeeded their anCeStral property, which was divided into two equal shares. Further, both of them Purchased 3 kuntas adjacent to said land. The complainant's father and Dr. G.Bramaharani became entitled to 18.5/6 cents each in total extent Of Survey Nos.461 and 482 in B.Kothakota revenue village. Moreso, the father of the cOmPlainant and Dr. G,Bramaharani executed an Agreement of sale in favour of lSt petitioner. subsequently, Dr. G.Bramaharani executed an agreement Of Sale in respect of her 50O/o share in the aforesaid property in favour of lSt petitioner. As the lSt petitioner had no money to purchase the share of Dr. G.Bramaharani, she sold the property ,in favour Of the de faCfo COmPlainant under a registered sale Deed dated 08.05.2008 with the consent of lSt petitioner, who stood as witness to the said sale Deed. Thereafter, the lst petitioner filed a suit against Dr. G.Bramaharani seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale vide O.S.No.45/2010 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. After an elaborate trial, `the said suit was dismissed by Judgment and decree dated 19.06.2017. It is alleged that thereafter both the petitioners created forged and fake Sale Deeds in respect \- --\ -r_ I. E= of the said property purchased,,by the complainant with a view to defeat and cheat the complainant. lt is further alleged that the petitioners have also created said fake sale Deed by misrepresentation. Said fabricated Sale Deed was dated 13.07.2012. Having come tO know Of the Same, the de 'faCfo complainant filed the present complaint, Which Was referred tO the POliCe under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis Of the Same, the POliCe registered the present crime. 4. Sri B.Balaiah, learned COunSel for the petitioners, contends that subsequently both the petitioners filed suit in O.S.No.367/2014 contending that the said sale Deed dated 13.07.2012 is genuine one and the same is not a fake and forged document. As such, he requests this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent states that the said suit o.s.No.367/2014 was also dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. Be thatas itmay, as the CrimeWaS registered in theyear2013 and as the investigation could not be Proceeded for Want Of appearance Of the petitioners, the same is still pending at the Stage Of F.I.R. and no progress in the investigation. Though the Crime iS registered in the year 2013, the police could not apprehend the petitioners. titapCtsof i+ 7. ln that View Of the matter, this Court feels that the Petitioners Can be released on bail, in the eve-nt, of their arrest, on the following conditions to enable the Investigating officer to proceed with the investigation: i) petitioners / A.1 and A.2 are directed tO Surrender before the station House Officer, B.Kothakota Police Station, Chittoor District, On Or before 24.04.2025. On such Surrender, the Station House Officer, B.Kothakota Police Station, Chittoor District, iS directed tO release the petitioners / A.1 and A.2 on bail On their executing a Personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each With two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the station House officer, B.Kothakota Police Station, Chittoor District. After their release, the pet'[tioners / A]1 & A.2 are directed tO cooperate With investigation ii) petitioners / A.1 & A.2 shall make themselves available for interrogat'lon as and when required, and they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to d'lssuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. iii) petitioners / A.1 & A.2 are directed tO appear before the Station House Offilcer, B.KothakOta Pol'lce Station, Ch'lttoor District, On'Ce in a week i.e., on every Monday between 10.00 A.M. and 01.00 P.M. unt" further orders. Accordingly, the Criminal Pet'ItiOn iS allowed. llTFTUE COPY I I Fo -__- I-. <-.-^= ----Tr -1r` sD,- B.PR`AsAD+ RfrQ [#EG~I:TTj\R ` ASSISTA SECTION `OFFICER To'1. The Station House Offi6Jer,~.-B.Kothakota Police Station, Ch-lttoor District 2. One CC to SRI. BALAIAH-a Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two cos to PUBLIC PRO-SECUTOR, H'lgh Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy PSR \ -\ --=nd ft-I----=-a--,--*---. -= -i: HIGH COURT KSR,J DATE D : 10/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.1495 of 2024 . 3 ALLOWED i.i i5;--'_ L th. -.,-`. `,9-SftCXNL GE {i _) 3 ELIR Lu\b