I/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2706 OF 2025 Betwee n : Nethala Vivek, S/o. Nethala Suribabu (Late) Aged.I 30 Years, R/o. D.No. 2-36-14, Paindorapeta, Near Commity Hall, Paindorapeta, Visakhapatnam, AP-530001 Petitioner/Accused No.5 AND The State ofAndhra pradesh, rep. by its public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra pradesh, Amaravati, Through statI'On House Officer, " Town Police Station, visakhapatnam. Respondent/complainant petI-lion under Sections 482 of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated I-n the affidavit filed I-n support of the criminal petition, the Hl'gh Court may be pleased to enlarge the petl't,-oner/ Accused No. 5 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crl'me No. No. 48 of 2025 on the file of the " Town police station, visakhapatnam, vI'sakhapatnam District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petjtI'On and the grounds filed I'n Support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA, Advocate for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the court made the following,I I. [3369] Betwee n : Nethala Vivek, AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh counsel for the pet'lt-loner/accused: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 1. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA counsel for the Respondent/COmPIainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short, lBNSS') is filed On behalf Of the petitioner/A5 to grant antiCiPatOry bail in connection With Crime No.48/2025 of ll Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. 2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner herein and Others for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian penal code,1860 and under Section 82 of Registration Act,1908. 3. The prosecution'S Case, in brief, iS that D. Venkatesh Naidu, Joint Sub- Registrar, addressed a letter to the Station House Offllcer of " Town Pol'lce station, visakhapatnam commissionerate, stating that he attended the Fse_, i= . . -i- ,=.--` \ Principal District Court, Visakhapatnam, on 09.12.2024, to give evidence in o.s.No.28 of 2024. During trfe course of the proceedings, the petitioner in O.S.No.28 of 2024, Sri Andraju Rajasekhar, filed a petition claiming that his property had been fraudulently alienated by another person, who had used a special power of attorney (attested as No. 277 of 2023 at the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar). The petitioner therein also presented his passport for verification. Upon review, it was found that the person who appeared as Andraju Rajasekhar (A.1) at the time of attestation of the special power Of attorney was not the same individual as the petitioner. Based on thj`s impersonated document, it was alleged that Smt. Chitikala Mahalakshmi Naidu (A.3) had been appointed as their agent to present the sale deed executed by them in favour of Sri V. Jaya Shankar before the Joint Registrar, Visakhapatnam! and to get it registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A5) asserts that the petitioner is merely the attesting witness of the alleged document, with the complainantls allegations primarily directed at the A.1 to A,3. The petitioner denies involvement in the offences and pleaded his innocence. At 30 years old, he is the sole breadwinner, supporting his dependent wife studying lst year LLB, mother, sister and children aged 5 and ll/2 years. The petitioner has no intention of absconding and willing to cooperate with the investigation, complying with any conditions for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposes the grant of anticiPatOry bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel On both Sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in the Report. Consequently, the contentions Presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. -.-±-..| c4gr I ngffi 7. ln Man,-pa/ V. Rajesh1, theHon'ble Apex Court held that it -lS necessary for the court, while consider'lng a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evident'lary record, there existed a pr,'ma fac,-e or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime. lt is settled law that when grant-lng bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the case's merits has not to be undertaken. That did not mean that whilst granting ba-ll, some reasons for prima facie conclud-lng why ba" was being granted d-ld not have to be indicated 8. lt 'lS Settled law that Wh-"e COnSidering the Prayer for grant Of antiCiPatOry bail, the nature and grav'lty of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. ln the event of there be'lng some doubt as to the genu'lneness of the prosecution, the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of ant'lcipatory bail. The court must adequately exercise its jurisd-lotion to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. lt is also a well-accepted principle that ba" is the rule and the ja" is the except-Ion. Arrest Should be the last OPtiOn, and -lt Should be restricted tO those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. 9. The Petit'loner asserts that his role Was limited tO attesting the document and that he had no knowledge of any fraudulent act-lvity. lt -ls the Registrat'lOn Deparfment'S duty tO Verify the authentiC'lty Of Submitted documents. No prima fac-le mater-lal suggests that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that the signatories were not the r-lghtful parties or lacked legal r-lghts to the property -ln quest'lon. 1O. ln the absence Of Such material, it 'lS 'lmPOrtant tO emphasize that nO prima facie case has been made to suggest that the petitioner had knowledge of any fraudulent activity or reason to doubt the document's authenticity speciflcally, there -ls no ind'lcat'lon that the petit'loner was aware, or had reason 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 •+sz2j33f33 €,_ I to bell'eve, that the speclal power of Attorney, allegedly executed by Andragu I/ Rajasekhar and his wI'fe, Srj Lakshml Andragu, was fraudulent or forged. wI'thOut such prI'ma facl'e materlal from the prosecution, lt cannot be assumed that the petltiOner was compliclt or had knowledge of any fraudulent actions surrounding the documentJs execution. Therefore, it would be premature to infer the petI'tiOner's l'nvolvement in any criminal actI'Vity related to the alleged forgery of the special power of Attorney. ll. At this stage, the a"egations agaI'nSt the Petl'tjoner are subjected to the trl-aI's outcome. lt js settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper wI'th the prosecutI'On evidence or I-ntiml'date the wI'tnesses cannot be a ground to refuse ba" unless the prosecutl'on shows that the accused tried for such tampering/jntI-midation. 12. It Its also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and theja" I-s the eFXnC,e^Prt:O^n:^T_h2e _H_on'::e .Apex coun in p.chidambaram -i: -=;;:c::I::ie\l :f Enforcemenf2, considering a" the earlier judgments, observed that the basl'c jurisprudence relating to ba" remains the same jn as much as the grant of ba" js the rule and refusal I-S the exception to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 13. lt I'S not the Prosecution's case that the petl-tjoner failed to cooperate wl'th the investigation, and he l|s not available for I-nterrogation. There is no I-ndication of a ljkell'hood that the petitioner would abscond from the jurI-Sdl-CtiOn of the court. The petl'tl-oner has expressed willingness to cooperate wl-th the investjgat,Ion agency. The object of the bal'I is neither punit,-ve nor preventative. Th^ I:I,_I:I__ _ I The likell'hood of levyl-ng accusations with _ -` -` | |\^| embarrass,'ng the petjtI'Oner through potential arrest is not improbable. case, this Court vl'ews that even I-f the the intentI'On of harming or 14. G,'ven the facts and circumstances of the case coupled wl-th the prima facI'e analysI'S Of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to thl-s r\1®- 1L~:_ -_ _ 2 (2019) 9SCC66 .-------` petl-tjoner Its granted pre-arrest bail, |I there cannot be any apprehenslori to"he prosec=\l_a_n_ tLhLa^\+h+ehaW=lot+=+=o=eerr =sh the evidence. The materlal Placed On record dlSCIOSeS that the Pet,tiOner has permanent abode. The facts dO not Warrant Custodial interrOgatlOn Of the petitioner 'ln the nature of the accusat'lons. Granting antiCiPatOry ba" tO the petit-loner would not Impede the ongoing Investigation. Therefore, lf the petitioner is granted ant|lcipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and meet the ends of just'lce. 15. Upon Careful review Of the aVa'llable mater-lal, aS there 'lS nO r'lSk Of interference with the ongoing investlgation by the petit'loner, this court finds that anticlpatory ba" can be granted to the petitioner under certain conditions. I) petitioner ls directed to surrender before the stat'lon House officer, " Town Police Station, VisakhaPatnam comm'lsslonerate, w'lthin two (2) weeks from today. On Such surrender, the petltioner sha" be enlarged on ba" on h'ls executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) With two Sureties Of the like Sum each tO the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating officer. i-I) on such release, the pet'lt|loner sha" appear before the station House Officer COnCerned Once in a Week i.e. On every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., for a Per'lOd Of three (03) weeks or till fil'lng of charge sheet, wh'lchever is earlier. iii) The Petit'lOner Sha" cooperate With the -lnVeStigat'lOn and he sha" make himself available for interrogation by a pol'lce officer as and when required, and he shau not, directly or ind'lrectly, make any 'lnducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to d'lssuade them tar=qmuad\l===ouslv==' i:':i +=cts to the court ono any police ofncer 16. lt iS explicitly Clarlfied that the Observations made in this Order are :r6=Hml+al= eaXnP=C=\=YriaC:="=Go+el:l== `ifa -i=clslon on the present appl\cat\on t- I without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freed6m to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is a//owed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. SD/- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT lSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OF-FICER For To, 1. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2. One CC to SRl. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAP [OUT] 4. One spare copy KJ ted,' -__Jff HIGH COURT TMRIJ DATED: 27/03/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2706 of 2025 ALLOWED ` -+ 2 B NIELR \&\5 ifeieg.tlgrgiv# .Ji : j#foS tee `