IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Lri MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: ¥T,J<33»;+=?:sd,;,iji:igj¥^,.a, |lii= HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2755 OF 2025 Betwee n : ..a.£_>P I `.. :?=!=r-==.I:^:I:.Tff` Kodukala Venkata Satyanarayana, s/o. Bhaskara Rao, Age 56 Years, Native of D.No. 2-25/38, FIat No.506, Geethanjali Gardens Apartments, Near ICICI Bank, Midhilapuri vuda colony, Visakhapatnam (Rural) -530041, Residing at 2-169/21, Flat No. 201, ChilukurI' BIossoms Apartment, Opp. Aditya Apartment, Midhalapuri VUDA Colony, Madhurvawda, VSKP -530048. ..Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its public prosecutor, Hl-gh Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, ll Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. ..|Respondent/Complainant petition under section .482 of BNSS is filed Praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of Grounds filed in Support Of the criminal petition, the H|Igh Court may be Pleased tO enlarge the petitioners/Accused No. 6 on Bail in the event Of Arrest in Crime No. No. 48 of 2025 on the file of the " Town Police Station, VisakhaPatnam, VisakhaPatnam District. lANO:1 OF 2025 petition under section 528 of BNSS is filed Praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of Grounds filed in Support Of the pet'ItiOn, the High Court may be pleased tO direct the respondent POliCe not tO arrest the petitioner here'ln in connection with crime No. No. 48 of 2025 on the file of ther#wn police station, visakhapatnam, visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of CRLP 2755 of 2025, on the file Of the High Court. The petition coming On for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in 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 follow-lng ORDER: lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH T\^/O THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2755 OF 2025 Between : Kodukala Venkata Satyanarayana The State of Andhra Pradesh AND [3369] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 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/A6 to grant anticipatory bail in connection With Crime No.48/2025 of ll Town Pol'lce Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. 2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner herein and Others for the offence punishable under sect'lons 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 Stat'lon House Officer Of ll Town Police station, visakhapatnam commissionerate, stating that he attended the ``--` ~ -----.-..` 2 principal Dl'strict court, vl|sakhapatnam, on o9.12.2024, to gI'Ve evidence in fr o.s.No.28 of 2024. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner in o.s.No.28 of 2024, Srj Andraju Rajasekhar, fl'led a petition clajmI'ng that hI-S property had been fraudulently alienated by another person, who had used a special power of attorney (attested as No. 2,77 of 2023 at the office of the Joint sub-Registrar). The petI'tl'Oner therel'n also presented hI'S Passport for verificatl-on. upon revl'ew, it was found that the person who appeared as Andraju Rajasekhar (A.1) at the time of attestatl'on of the specl'al power of attorney was not the same indl'vidual as the petitioner. Based on thI-S I'mPerSOnated document, it was alleged that smt. chI-tikala Mahalakshml' Nal'du (A.3) had been appoI'nted as their agent to present the sale deed executed by them in favour of sri v. Jaya shankar before the Joint Registrar, Vl-sakhapatnam, and to get I-I regI'Stered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A6) asserts that the petI-tiOner is merely the scribe of the alleged document, wl'th the complainantls allegations primarily directed at the other accused. The petitioner denl'es involvement jn the offences and pleaded his innocence.'At 56 years old, he is the sole breadwlnner, supporting his dependent wife, elderly mother (80 years old), and daughter, whose education and marriage proposals would be affected. The petitI'Oner has no l'ntentl-on of abscondl'ng and willl-ng to cooperate with the investigat,Ion, complying wl'th any conditI-OnS for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petitI-Oner seeks the grant of anticipatory baI'I. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor, appearI-ng for the Respondent/state, opposes the grant of anticI-PatOry ba" on the ground that the l'nvestigatI'On I'S Still pending. 6. I have heard both s,Odes. Learned counsel on both sl-des reiterated their subm,'ssions on par wl'th the contentions presented in the petition as we" as in the Report. consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. EE ==L-+ +-I++Jlatiq /i/ 3 J 7. In Mah,-pa/ V. Ra/-esh1, the, Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court, whI®Ie considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a pr,-ma fac,-e or reasonable ground to bell'eve that the accused has committed the crime. It is settled law that when granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence land elaborate documentation of the case's merits has not to be undertaken. That dl'd not mean that whilst granting bail, some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted did not have to be indicated 8. It is settled lawthat while considering the prayer for grant ofanticipatory bail, the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest I'S made. ln the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticjpatory baI'I. The Court must adequately exercise its jurl'sdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exceptI'On. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imper'ative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. 9. The Petitioner asserts that his role was limited to scribing the document and that he had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity. It is the Registration Department's duty to verify the authenticity of submitted documents. The Prosecution has not placed any material indicating a legal obligation under the RegistratI'On Act or any other relevant statute requiring the scribe to confirm the l'dentity of the document signatories. No prima facie material suggests that the Petl'tioner knew or had reason to believe that the signatories were not the rl-ghtful parties or lacked legal rl'ghts to the property in question. 10. In the absence of such material, it is important to emphasize that no Prima faCie Case has been made to suggest that the Petitl'oner had knowledge I (2020) 2 SCC 118 ©a63SiZ3Zfa of any fraudulent activity or reason to doubt the document's authenticity. specifically, there is no indication that the petitl'oner was aware, or had reason to believe, that the Special Power of Attorney, allegedly executed by Andragu Rajasekhar and his wife, Sri Lakshmi Andragu, was fraudulent or forged. Without such prima facie material from the Prosecution, it cannot be assumed that the Petitioner was complicit or had knowledge of any fraudulent actions surrounding the document's execution. Therefore, it would be premature to infer the Petitioner's involvement in any crirninal activity related to the alleged forgery of the Special Power of Attorney. ll. At this st,age, the allegations against the Petitioner are subjected to the trial's outcome. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 12. lt is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and thejail is the exception. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Ch,-dambaram V. a,'recforafe of Enforcemenf2, considering all the earlier judgments, observed that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in as much as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fal'r trial. 13. lt is not 'the Prosecutionls case that the Petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation, and he is not available for interrogation. There is no indication of a likelihood that the Petitioner would abscond from the I-uriSdiCtiOn of the Court. The Petitioner has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The likelihood of levying accusations with the intention of harming or embarrassing the Petitioner through potential arrest is not improbabl;. 2 (2019)9SCC66 Ei €l-i--ts' 14. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prima I, facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors Peculiar tO this case, this Court views that even if the Petitioner is granted Pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that he Will tamPer With the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the Petitioner has permanent abode. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the Petitioner in the nature of the accusations. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner would not impede the ongoing investigation. Therefore, if the Petitioner is granted anticipatory. bail subject to appropriate conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and meet the ends Of juStiCe. 15. Upon careful review of the available material, aS there iS nO risk Of interference with the ongoing investigation by the Petitioner, this Court finds that ant'lcipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under certain conditions: i) petitioners are directed to surrender before the Station House officer, ll Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam commissionerate, within two (2) weeks from today. 6n such surrender, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his 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 Offllcer. ii) on such release, the petitioner shall 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 Period Of three (03) weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever iS earlier. iii) The Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a POliCe Officer as and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any Person greg- acquainted with the _facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclos-lng such fa-Cts to the Court or to any police officer. 16. lt 'ls explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and perta'ln solely to the decision on the present application without indicat'lng a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigat.e without being influenced by the observations in this Order. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are a//owec'. Miscellaneous applications Pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. sD/-G.HELAN_AJP¥ ASSISTAN ForA //TRUE COPY// SECTION ToREtslTcREA:R To, 1. The Station House Officer, lI Town Pol'lce Station, Visakhapatnam commissionerate, Visakhapatnam. 2. One CC to SRl. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. One spare copy KN *9 `rdy HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED: 24/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2755 of 2025 ALLOWED •...=*