.{ . '`-) lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl // MONDAYI THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILl ,tof3Zpe TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE zzzzz :PRESENT: TH7HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO fas CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3638 OF 2025 zz/ Between= Gujjula Narasa Reddy, S/o Late Chenna Reddy, aged 70 years, Retired Employee, R/o D.No.4-68, Dibbala Road, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole - I.... 523001, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.10 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi, through the Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk `` Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS, is filed, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner/A10 in connection with Cr. No.918 of 2023 dated 02-12-2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 lPC of the Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.Radhakrishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following Order: The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the BNSS, is filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/A10 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with crime No.918 of 2023 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, prakasam District, registered for the 'offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,-471 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that this is a case involving the impersonation of a public servant, cheating, forgery for the purpose Of cheating, and criminal intimidation, which occurred prior to 02.12.2023 in Ganapathi Nagar, Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, and was reported at o9:00 p.m. on 02.12.2023 ,at the police station by the complainant. Initially, Al to A4 were ide'ntified as the culprits, with allegations that, for wrongful gain and with the intention tO Cheat the complainant, they forged and fabricated a Will in the name Of the complainan{]s aunt, Veeramma, and registered land measuring Ac.1-45 cents in sy.No.112 at Pernamitta village in their names. Upon discovering this, the complainant, along with her worker named sudhakar, wen't to the disputed land and questioned the accused aS tO why they were occupying her land without her consent. ln response, the accused criminally intimidated her, threatening to kill her if she entered E= f£' fu/ i. E`\ \ I, 2 the land again. According to the investigation, A9 introduced Al to Ongole, and they both 'sought vacant lands. Al and A9, with the assistance of A2 to A4, created a forged Will, granted a General Power of A.ttorney (GP) for the land to A5 to A8, and later Al registered 50 acres of land toA9 toAll. 3. Heard. P-erused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, according to -the prosecutionls case, Al and A9 created a forged Will with the assistance of A2 to A4. Subsequently, they granted a General Power of Attorney to A5 to A8, and later, Al registered 50 gadies of land in favor of A9 to All. He further submits that the petitioner is a bona tide purchaser who, having paid the consideration amount, purchased the property in 2015. In support of this contention, the petitioner has submitted a copy of the sale deed, which references the purchase of the property. 5. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the crime was registered regarding the incident on 02.12.2023. lt is therefore clear that the petitioner is said to have _purchased the property eight years prior to the lodging of the report. No other material has been placed on record to indicate that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged _forgery of the documents, as contended in the report. since the petitioner purchased the property based on a registered document, this \` =_-ii= 3 Court concludes that sufficient knowledge of the facts can be inferred to the de facto complainant, who lodged the report in the year 2023. 6. Considering the long delay in giving the report and there is no prima facie material {o show the involvement of the petitioner in forging the document and since the petitioner herein is a bor,a i,de purchaser, this Court is inclined to consider request of petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner herein is directed to surrender before the station House Officer concerned, within a period of two weeks from today. On such surrender, the petitioner herein is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned. (ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required and that he shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. 7. Accordl'ngly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. KASIRAO ACHARI AS S ISTANgTJ#G/fil STRA R SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House officer, ongole Taluk Police station, ongole, Prakasam Distrl'ct. 2. One CC to Sri A.Radhakrishna, Advocate [opuc] 3. Two cos topuBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., Amaravati. [ouT] 4. One spare copy. PSD -I-l`t:_`rr-.-I-I.I.tl:I-r,I,I..)``..*rrap¥gr_!>-`ar:i!h,~`,-9,-~-;..'J|t''.M'ren HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED :28/04/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3638 of 2025 ALLOWED +Tfafror=\_?*+c3»r`b "iEEHLEREREREREH (/€ =- '{J a {LB \PR'&ife at;`#fr;er§tiS g~£*£*``caj:`, I+