APHC010037362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3239] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 783/2025 Between: G. KIRAN KUMAR, S/O G.VENKATARATHNAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 1-1248, M.M.WADA, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN-517 644, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through S.H.O. Srikalahasthi II Town Police Station, Tirupati District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati . ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER :- A.2 in Crime No.160 of 2024 of Srikalahasti II Town Police Station, Tirupati District, filed the present application under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. The said crime was registered for the offences under Sections. 420, 406, 464, 467, 471, 506 read with 34 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is residing at Srikalahasti Town and with an intention to construct a 2 Crl.P.No.783 of 2025 KSR,J house, she approached A.1 on 12.12.2023. A.1 took the defacto complainant to the petitioner/A.2 who is residing in Door No.1-1248. He sold the house plot to the defacto complainant for an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- under a sale letter. After purchasing the said plot, she made construction by investing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. While so, on 16.06.2024, the Municipal Authorities came to the said shop and demolished the said construction with the help of JCB. When the defacto complainant questioned the Municipal Authorities, they informed that the land, in which construction was made, belongs to the Government and all the documents shown by the petitioner were held to be forged documents. Thereafter, the defacto complainant approached A.1 and A.2 and questioned them and asked for repayment of money, but they did not choose to give any reply. On the basis of the said allegations, the present crime has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that A.1 who is a broker of real estate business was already arrested and granted regular bail. He further contends that though demolition took place on 16.06.2024, the defacto complainant lodged the present report on 15.11.2024 with a delay of nearly five months. As such, he requests this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by contending that the petitioner was not having any title over the subject house site and he sold the property to the defacto complaint which belongs to the Government. 6. This court perused the entire material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner has no title over the subject house site, which was sold to the defacto complainant under a sale letter. As such, the petitioner is not 3 Crl.P.No.783 of 2025 KSR,J entitled for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____ K.SURESH REDDY, J Dt. 04.04.2025 SAB / TSNR 4 Crl.P.No.783 of 2025 KSR,J 60 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.783 OF 2025 Dt. 04.04.2025 SAB / TSNR