APHC010329812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6838/2025 Between: Reddepogu Chinna Guravaiah Alias Gurav and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’)by the petitioners/A2 and A3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.918 of 2023 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the defacto complainant lodged a report with the respondent police alleging that her father-in-law, Kakumani Pedda Subbaiah, purchased Ac.5.00 cents of land in Sy.No.112/1 of Pernamitta Village in the year 1971. After his demise, her husband Ramalingaiah sold Ac.3.55 cents to Pasupuleti Hanumayamma and Gopisetty Polaiah in the year 1982. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining land, i.e., Ac.1.45 cents. It is alleged that A1 created a false Will, purportedly executed by the defacto complainant’s junior aunt, Kakumanu Veeramma, entered the said land, divided it into plots, and sold the same to various parties between the years 2010 and 2015. Later, when the defacto complainant entered the land and came to know about the alleged transactions, A1, along with the petitioners, is said to have threatened her with dire consequences, showing her fake documents. Based on this, a crime was registered. The offences alleged are non-bailable in nature, and the petitioners apprehend arrest and possible maltreatment at the hands of the respondent police. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri T.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case; they are the sole breadwinners of their families; they are ready to 3 abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and urged to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3. 5. Per contra, Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, they will repeat the same offence, and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. The defacto complainant, Kakumani Narayanamma, lodged a report against the petitioners and other accused stating that, after the death of her father-in-law Kakumani Pedda Subbaiah, her husband, Kakumani Ramalingaiah, came into possession of Ac.3.55 cents of land. This land was sold to Pasupuleti Malakondaiah Naidu (Ac.1.40 cents), Pasupuleti Hanumayamma (Ac.1.35 cents), and Gopisetti Polaiah (Ac.0.80 cents) on 03.06.1982 through registered sale deeds. The remaining Ac.1.45 cents of land stood in the name of her husband, and after his death, the defacto complainant claims to have succeeded to the property, as reflected in the online encumbrance certificate and Adangal survey report issued by the Mandal Revenue Office. She contends that she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. 7. However, she alleges that in 2010, Reddypogu Guravayya (A1) forged a Will dated 17.05.1999 in the name of her junior maternal aunt, purporting to bequeath Ac.1.45 cents of land in his favour. Based on the said forged Will, A1, A2, A3, and others allegedly entered into her land, created forged 4 documents, and sold the land to various third parties. It is further alleged that the final transaction took place on 19.03.2019, when A1 sold 363 sq. yards of land to one Danduri Adinarayana. 8. Upon discovering these transactions, the defacto complainant visited the land, where she was allegedly threatened by the petitioners and other accused with dire consequences. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she specifically alleged that the petitioners and other accused threatened her on 02.12.2023. 9. From the record, it appears that a civil suit is pending between the defacto complainant and certain relatives of the petitioners in connection with the same subject matter. Pursuant to the demise of the defacto complainant’s junior maternal aunt, her legal representatives were brought on record in A.S.No.1607 of 1998. On 01.11.2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court remanded the matter for recording evidence regarding the genuineness of the Will. 10. Be that as it may, there is a long-standing civil dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners, which has been pending for over a decade. 11. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and their alleged roles attributed to them, this 5 Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, subject to the following stringent conditions: a) In the event of arrest of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioners shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. f) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claims that they does not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 04.08.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6838 of 2025 Date:04.08.2025 S D P