\\ + lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE Dr JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2128 OF 2025 Betwee n : Gudise Sai Devanand, S/o, Gudise Devanand, Age 35 years, R/o.H.No.1- 11-24-44, Water Tank Road, Kadiri Town MandaI, Sri Satya Sai District. A.P. . . .Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi, Through Station House Officer, Kadiri Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District (Ananthapuram District). ...Respondent/ Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that irl the circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.12 of 2025 on the file of Kadiri Town Police Station, Sri Satya Saj District (Ananthapuram District); The petitl'on coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Devalaraju Anil Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent; APHCO10100722025 E#E ELTff+i ®. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2128/2025 Between : Gudise Sai Devanand ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the BNSS, is filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/A2 to grant anticipatory bal-I in connection with Crime No.12 of 2025 of Kadiri Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338 and 308(5) read with 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that this is a case of cheating followed by the forgery of valuable documents and extortion by putting a person in fear of death. Al and his son A2 have given the money of Rs.1,40,000/-little by little on loan to the defacto complainant in the year 2023 and told the complainant to get the remaining money, they asked the defacto complainant to mortgage her property. Then, the defacto complainant agreed to mortgage her property of Ac.06-92 acres located in Sy.Nos.91, 93 of Maddivarigondi village, Gandlapenta Mandal and they related to it. Since the defacto complainant could not read or write Telugu, taking this as a advantage, Al and A2 and their associates A3 and A4 and others prepared a sale deed agreement in the name of the t`r a~ Dr vip,I Crl P No.2128 of 2025 Jr, defacto complainant's daughter and that A2 instated of mortgage document, without knowledge of the defacto complainant and her daughters, taken their signatures in the sale deed docuements, forged the documents for the said property and got registered Ac.06.92 acres of land property in the names of A2 and the daughter of the defacto complainant at Kadiri Sub-Registrar Office illegally and cheated the defacto complainant and also threaten her with dire consequences by forcibly took the money and document from the hand of the complainant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is alleged against Al who is father of A2 that he has lend an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-to the defacto complainant in different spells and aS a surety the defacto complainant kept her property documents to an extent of Ac.06.92cents. Thereafter, the defacto complainant executed a mortgage deed in favour of A1. Later, the defacto complainant came to know that it is not a mortgage deed and it is a sale deed and thereby the accused \cheated and forged her signature and extorted her property. Learned counsel for the petitioner further would submit that the Property stands in the name of A2. The defacto complainant executed a registered a sale deed in t'he name of A2 on 03.07.2023. Thereafter, a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.6 of 2024, seeking cancellation of sale deed. As an afterthought, the present case has been lodged on 17.01.2025. Even on the face of allegations, the offence of forgery does not arise in the present case. Since, the complainant herself executed the document and it is her case that under the impression that it is a mortgage deed, she has executed. Learned counsel for the petit-loner further would submit that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence tzzzzz3ZZP Dr.VJP,J Crl.P.No.2128 of2025 alleged. As the Property Stands in the name Of A2 and a civil suit has been filed against him and it is purely civil in nature. Nearly after ll/2 year, the defacto complainant has come up with a story of cheating, forgery and extortion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further would submit that by this time most of the investigation might have been completed and prays this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein. 5. On the Other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would Q~ submit that as many as eight witnesses were examined in the present crime and the petitioner herein has no previous crime record and the investigation in the present crime is not yet completed and hence, he opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the SubmiSSiOnS made and On Perusal of the material on record, this court is of the opinion that this is not the stage to decide the culpability of the PetI'tiOner by accepting the allegations against him and it is admitted fact that the defacto complainant borrowed an amount from the father of A2 I'n different spells and executed such document and in view of the fact that crucial witnesses were examined and the question of interfering with the investigation does not arise and hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein, on the following conditions. i. petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within two (2) weeks from the date Of receipt 9f a copy Of this Order and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. <_± E= a I,z,> I Dr-VJP,.I Crl.P.No.2128 of2025 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. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. sD/-G.HELANAIDU ASSlSTANT SEC GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// lON OFFICER For To, 1. The Station House Officer, Kadiri Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District (Ananthapuram District). 2. One CC to SrI'. DevalaraJ®u Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two cos to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAP [OUT] 4. One spare copy un \=- I-`9 HIGH COURT VJP,J DATED:18/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2128 of 2025 ALLOWED t27 MAR ?«?5 RILE t'.-L\,~-. f`D `.±"i?..I ur = _seife'^