1 APHC010644952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12430/2025 Between: 1. ALAVALAPATI RAVI SHANKAR REDDY, S/O.A. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.1-06, KARNAPAPAYYAPALLI VILLAGE,VELIDINDIA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. DASARI UMADEVI, W/O. DASARI BALANJANEYULU,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 6-3-885,SANGAMESH NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU,ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN P.S.,ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI. 2. TANGIRALA VASANTHA, W/O. G. KESAVA PRAKASH, AGE 57 YEARS, D.NO.12-2-422/37, FLAT NO.102, SAI SIVAKRISHNA APARTMENT, PRIYA COLONY, GUDIMALKAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500028. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 09.12.2025 IN CRL.P.NO.12430 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. E ANJANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., is filed by the Petitioners herein seeking to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.329 of 2025 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4) and 61(2) read with 3(5) of BNS. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no allegations against the petitioners herein that they created a fake death certificate of the de facto complainant in this matter. He further submits that they merely purchased the property from A1 in the month of January 2025, and thereafter a requisite deed was executed by A1 in favour of A2 in the month of May 2025. Thereafter, A2 sold the subject property to A3 in the month of June 2025. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner/A2 has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, which is pending consideration. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that there is a clear conspiracy between A1 and the petitioners herein. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that, even according to A2, he had sold the property in the month of June 2025 to A3, but still filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the month of October 2025, which itself shows his involvement in the offence and the alleged conspiracy. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and that the accused is absconding in this matter. She further submits that a prima facie case exists against the petitioners and prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, respondent No. 2/de facto complainant approached the Superintendent of Police by 3 submitting an application under PGRS, which was referred to the concerned police station. After enquiry, the case was referred as civil in nature. Meanwhile, challenging the interference of the police in the civil matter, the petitioners filed a writ petition and thereafter withdrew the same. Subsequently, the present case has been registered against the petitioners. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since it is alleged that the accused created a fake death certificate of the de facto complainant and sold away the property, and A2 herein, having purchased and registered the same property, sold it away within a few months, this Court finds the conduct of the petitioners doubtful. Be that as it may, A2 has filed a civil suit as if he had not sold the property much prior to the date of the said suit, which itself shows lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners herein to exercise the jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail in this matter. Furthermore, the investigation is at a crucial stage, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 27.01.2026 Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.12430 of 2025 Date: 27.01.2026 Asr