APHC010210972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3222/2026 Between: 1. RAJESH KUMAR AGRWALA, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. RAMAVTAR AGARWAL, R/O. OF 106, GADIRAJU EMPIRE, SECTOR 11, MVP COLONY,VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 017. 2. SUMAN AGARWAL, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWALR/O. OF 106, GADIRAJU EMPIRE,SECTOR 11, MVP COLONY,VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 017 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,THROUGH SHO, KANCHILI PS., SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.21 of 2026 on the file of Kanchili Police Station, Srikakulam District, which is registered for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC. 2 2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for State / Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the De facto complainant herein is the sister of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 is the wife of Accused No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made against Accused No.1 is that he has forged the Special Power of Attorney as if it is executed by the De facto complainant in his favour and sold the property to Accused No.2, who in turn sold the same to third parties. Learned counsel would further submit that, it is a registered Special Power of Attorney executed by the De facto complainant in favour of Accused No.1 in the year 2022 and thereafter Accused No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of Accused No.2. It is further contended that this case is lodged on 18.03.2026 making allegations that Accused No.1 forged the document, without there being any iota of material. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioners are ready to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, prayed to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is pending for want of FSL report in this matter. It is further submitted that the investigation is at the nascent stage. Liberty may be given to the Investigating Officer to take appropriate steps against the Petitioners in case anything unearthed against the Petitioners regarding the forgery. 5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners does not appear to be necessary at this stage. Having regard to 3 the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that a limited protection can be granted to the Petitioners, while at the same time ensuring that the investigation is not hampered. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of: (i) Investigating Officer is at liberty to complete the investigation, in accordance with law. (ii) In the event of any coercive action sought to be taken against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2, concerned Police Authorities are directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of BNSS. (iii) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, shall cooperate with further investigation, if any, and shall provide any information or material for the purpose of investigation. (iv) This protection will be continued to the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 subject to their conduct and cooperation to the investigation failing which, the prosecution is at liberty to take appropriate steps. (v) If any incriminating material is found against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 and if their custodial interrogation is necessary, Investigating Officer is at liberty to obtain necessary permission from the jurisdictional Court and proceed in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 06.05.2026 Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow B/o. Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3222 of 2026 Dt.06.05.2026 Dinesh