1 =EE=E=ffiH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR ~/ MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.I 3680 OF 2025 Between : 'fPotlurI' Raja Sree, W/o Raghavendra Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ. House wife, R/o Plot Nos. 32 & 33, Lakshmi Durga Enclave, Miyapur, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy DI'StriCt. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh,I Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Judicature of A.P., At Amaravathi, Through The S.H.O., Gannavaram up p.s. Krishna District. ..Respondent/Complainant Petition under section 4'82''of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Pet,'tioner/Accused No.2 on anticipatory bail l'n the event of her arrest in connection with crime¥ c No.331/2023 of Gannavaram up -p.s., Krishna District. A The Petition coming on for,hearing, upon perusing the petition and the' inemorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI HARINADH NIDAMANURI Advocate for the petitioner, and;I of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent,I I APHCO10170542025 EisHE I/ lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special Original Jut-lsdiction) [3369] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3680/2025 Between : Potluri Raja Sree ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Pradesh counsel for the petitioner/accused: 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI counsel for the Respondent/COmPIainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR . The Court made the following: ORDER:I This Criminal Petit-Ion has been filed by the petitioner/A2, seek|[ng anticipatory 'bai[, in connection with Crime No.331 of 2023 of Gannavaram UP PoI'lce Station, Krishna Distr-lot. 2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506,120(B) I/vy 34 of IPC. 3. The brief faCtS Of the Case are that the incident OCCur4red prior to o8.07.2023 at SRO Gannavaram, Gannavaram Village -TEE <=.- `- I I- 2 and Mandal and reported on o8.07.2O23 at ll.00 hours that the defacto complainant stated that he possess a land to an extent of Ac.0-65 cents in R.S.No.221/5 of Gannavaram, he acquired the property through relinquishment deed vide Doc.No.5738 of 2005, dated 29.12.2005 of SRO Gannavaram executed by hI-S mother and brother. On 12.05.2023, one Kongara Jaya Sree applied to Tahsildar, Gannavaram .for issuing pattadar pass book etc in her favour with regard to the property in an extent of Ac.0-43 cents out of complainant's property by producing a registered wi" said to have been executed by one Kambampati Konda Ramaiah stating that he bequeathed the property in an extent of Ac.0-43 cents in R.S.No.221/5, with the interest to prabhakar Rao and vested reminder to Jaya SreeI Jaya Sree mentioned that the said Will was registered by the Kodanda RamaI'ah aS Doc.No.39/2001 of SRO Gannavaram, on verifying the complainant came to know that Doc.No.39/2001 of SRO Gannavaram was executed by one Kodali Uma Maheswara Rao of Purushotapatnam. Later he came to know that the respondents conspired together to grab the property of the complainant by creating wm by forging the thumb impression of Kodanda Ramaiah in fraudulent way and registered in Doc.No.39/2001. Hence, he approached the HonJble Court to \`-` G±ffZZ6=± '\\ I,i? 3 // take necessary action against Kongara Jaya Sree, Potluri Raja sree, Kambampati Jagadeesh -Babu, Kambampati Chandra Sekhara Rao, Kongara Vijaya Kumar and basing on the Court endorsement the case is registered. 4. I Heard. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitic;ner submits that, even according to the contents 'of the private complaint, particularly paragraph No.4, it is clearly -stated that on 12.05.2023, Al applied {o the Tahsildar, Gannavaram, for issuance of a pattadar passbook based on a registered Will dated 02.06.2001, allegedI,y executed by one Kambampati Kodanda Ramaiah, the father of Al to A3. The learned counsel further points out that a suit in o.s. No. 35 of 2015, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudiwada, was filed against the complainant, wherein Al to A4 claimed rights- over the said property. 6. In paragraph No. 5 of'the private complaint, it is stated that Al to A4 had clearly mentioned in their plaint in O.S. No. 35 of 2015 that Kambampati Kodanda Ramaiah died intestate about 12-years prior to the filing of the suit. Even a prima facie reading of the complaint indicates that the document in question GZfZZZZ3zzZS 4 Was Produced before the Tahsildar by Al for the issuance Of the pattadar passbook. 7. The learned counsel forthe petitioner further submits that, according to the petitioner's stand, she has had no contact with the defacto complainant, has never executed any document, and was not involved in the preparation of any such deed. The petitioner is stated {o be resjding'far away along with her husband, is a woman, and is about 60 years of age. 8. Upon careful perusal of the record, it.is noted that the petitioner did not produce the document before the Tahsildar for the issuance of the pattadar passbook. when queried, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confirmed that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioher/A2. 9. ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed by granting anticipatory bail {o the petitioner/A2 subject to her surrender before the investigating officer concerned within two (o2) weeks from today. On such surrender, .the petitioner shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned investigating officer. upon her iE= [EL- L~ -,, I.;' 5 r/ release, the petitioner is mandated to adhere to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner/A2 is directed to ,appear before the concerned investigating officer as and when requirecl; and (ii) The petitioner/A2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dI-SSuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any investigating or poll'ce officer and shall cooperate with the investigating officer. 10. 10. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial will Proceed independently of the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application. SD/-G.HELANAIDU ASSISTANT GISTRAR L| a ...r.I=,..:. cvicy) .^'-_i_.` E= .:, I;.-//TR|UE C_OPY// •?.-:==..:: `.i For. SECTION OFFICER . _--I-I I tf t| \ The Station House Officer:'j . Gannavaram UP PolI'Ce Station, Krishna District. one cc to SRI. HARINA:bH NIDAMANURI Advocate [OPUC] Two cos to PUBLIC' 'PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy PSR ['`. -..--`.. l' ~ \* -= L'I - a.,." \_ I HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED..21/04/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3680 of 2025 ALLOWED d\ `l 1 ELPR \`ife. LLL=±EL5RE