JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is accused No.l among two accused of Crime No. 169 of 2018 of Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC on 22.06.2018. 2. The aforesaid crime is registered based on a private complaint of the de facto complainant, dated 06.06.2018. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, referred the said complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., 1973 to the police, from which the police registered the present crime on 22.06.2018. 3. The sum and substance of accusation from the private complaint contents in registration of the FIR are that the de facto complainant is the owner and possessor of plot Nos.5 and 6 part, in Survey Nos. 860 and 861, admeasuring 300 square yards of Nadergul Village, Balapur Mandal (the then Saroor Nagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.8812 of 1998, dated 04.07.1988 from A.1, namely Chamangari Venkat Swamy, no other than his own brother, and later the complainant constructed a compound wall and temporary shed therein and also obtained electrical service connection. 4. Originally, A.1 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0.33½ guntas in the survey numbers referred supra, having pure hased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.4984 of 1983, dated 17.08.1983, and converted into house plot Nos.1 to 12 and offered alienation of the said plots. The complainant through A.1 purchased 300 square yards of land referred supra under a registered sale deed bearing document No.8812 o; 1988, dated 04.07.1988, and obtained building permission from the Gram Panchayat, vide permission No. 114 of 1993. Though could not construct for want of funds, later obtained renewal in the years 1998 and 2001. While so, in the month of February, 2018, when the complainant started constructing compound wall and a small shed, A.2 with unsocial elements chiming as owner of plot No.2, admeasuring 300 square yards of land in the survey numbers referred supra, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.3050 of 2017, dated 06.07.2017, is trying to obstruct the same. A.1 with an ill intention again developed the land and created sale deed in the name of A.2 by showing the subject plot Nos.5 and 6 part, as plot No.2 by mentioning the boundaries of the subject plots, which were purchased by the complainant and thereby cheated the complainant. Hence, to take action. 5. The petitioner went unsuccessful in seeking Anticipatory Bail by dismissal order, dated 31.07.2018 in Crl. M.P. Nos.3076 and 3065 of 2018 in Crime No. 169 of 2018, by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the observation of the Court below is that having sold the subject plots in the year 1988 to the de facto complainant by A.1, again sold with change of plot numbers physically by creating sale deed in favour of A.2 and there is prima facie accusation, thereby the petitioner is not entitled for concession of Anticipatory bail. 6. The contention of the petitioner/A.1 is that leave about 1988 sale deed where he executed, despite in favour of the de facto complainant, what supra purchased is part of plot No.6 and 5 of 300 square yards of land, whereas what A.1 sold to A.2 is plot No.2 and plot Nos.5 and 6 part are different from plot No.2, and there is intervening road in between 20 feet wide road to the north of plot No.5 to the south of plot No.4 and plot No.2 is thereby hitherto. Further, north to Plot No.2 and once there is a clear cut and undisputed identity from the allegations in the private complaint in registration of the crime is unsustainable, the petitioner is entitled for concession of Anticipator Bail and purely it is a civil dispute and the de facto complainant proves nothing but added criminal flavour and placed reliance for that document in this regard. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same saying that it is a fake document with self same property created in collusion between A.1 and A.2 and statements of witnesses from the investigation also disclosed the same and the petitioner is not entitled for concession of Anticipatory Bail. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same saying that it is a fake document with self same property created in collusion between A.1 and A.2 and statements of witnesses from the investigation also disclosed the same and the petitioner is not entitled for concession of Anticipatory Bail. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. A perusal of the schedule of the very property of Ac.3.14 guntas in Survey Nos.860 and 861 was purchased by complainant through A.1 on 17.08.1983 with boundaries, East-Government Road, West-Kesar Malla Reddy land, North-land of Malla Reddy and South,- Mangal Govind land. Out of which, even from the very de facto complainant's private complaint averments laid 12 plots and sold plot Nos.5 and 6 part, to him in the year 1988. The layout enclosed to the sale deed of 1988 in favour of the de facto complainant executed by A.1 shows that plot No.5 is to the north of plot No.6 and towards north there is 20 feet widen road and plot No.s 1 to 4 are to the north of it. 10. So far as the 2nd accused obtaining the sale deed from the 1st accused is concerned, the boundaries show East 66' wide road and west 15' feet wide road respectively and North-plot No.3 and South-plot No. 1. For that the petitioner placed reliance on the so-called copy of the panchayat approved layout of the year 1991 to correlate. If it is taken into consideration, plot No.2 is different and plot Nos.5 and 6 part are differently located. Once such is the case, there might not be any basis on the apprehension of the complainant that his plot Nos.5 and 6 part, again sold as of plot No.2. Therefore, the petitioner/A. 1 is entitled for Anticipatory Bail with the following conditions: [1] Petitioner-A. 1 shall within fifteen (15) days from today submit before the S.H.O. concerned and execute a self-bond for Rs. 50,000/- Rupees fifty thousand only] with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, otherwise giving liberty to the petitioner to submit within said 15 days from now before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class having the jurisdiction, for taking to custody and to enlarge as above. 50,000/- Rupees fifty thousand only] with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, otherwise giving liberty to the petitioner to submit within said 15 days from now before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class having the jurisdiction, for taking to custody and to enlarge as above. The bond to be obtained is not only to appear before the Court pending investigation and after filing of final report in the form of charge sheet or the like for enquiry or pre-committal enquiry before said Court, but also thereafter on committal before the Court of Sessions or by virtue of any transfer of proceedings for want of jurisdiction or otherwise before any other Court and even after trial before such Court to appear before provisional or appellate Court or other superior Court - vide decision -Pre-Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur v. State of Delhi 1982 [2] APLJ 43(SC); so that at stage of committal or other proceedings obtaining of fresh bond from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and solvency earlier produced are ratifying and in existence and enforceable, without even insisting their further presence, serves the purpose. Such recourse quickens the proceedings at such committal or other stages without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of section 437A Cr.P.C., 1973 [2] Petitioner-accused shall report before the Station House Officer, concerned on every Wednesday and Sunday till filing of the charge sheet and thereafter once in a month on 1st Sunday till completion of trial/enquiry between 10.00 and 11.00 AM for assurance of his availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses. [3] Petitioner-accused shall not enter the area where the victim and witnesses reside, until further orders being passed by the learned Magistrate relaxing the same empowering him by virtue of this order. [4] Petitioner-accused shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not his bail shall be cancelled forthwith, without any further order so that, the Magistrate can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439 [2] Cr.P.C. delegated to the learned Magistrate by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Magistrate. [5] Petitioner-accused shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge. [5] Petitioner-accused shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge. [6] Petitioner-accused shall furnish his full address with property and Bank Account particulars and submit his passport if any, after enlargement of bail on the next hearing date before the Magistrate Court concerned (for collecting by police as part of their duty to investigate-also the means of accused and to furnish the same in the final report of investigation to enable the trial court in the event of considering the need of awarding compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C, 1973 So to award from such material and evidence, apart from securing presence and obtaining of bond with sureties under section 437A Cr.P.C., 1973 etc.), failing which it is open to the learned Magistrate concerned by virtue of the power conferred by this order to cancel the bail. [7] In the event of the police making out a case for police custody for the purpose of interrogation, the petitioner shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the further investigation remained if any, with the permission of the Magistrate concerned who can grant such police custody within 15 days from today, not exceeding 12 hours in the presence of a male member, subject to necessary precautions and instructions as per the constitutional bench expression of the Apex Court in guideline No. iv in Gurbaksh Singh Sibhia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 . [8] 'The bail now granted is since a regular one till end of trial (without prejudice to the right to cancel meanwhile in case of need and/or for non-compliance of conditions supra) any absence of petitioner as accused for hearing/enquiry or trial, issuance of non bailable warrant-NBW (unless cancelled before execution) and even its execution and production of accused as per the NBW; that does not tantamount to cancellation of bail including from the wording of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 and as such in such event no fresh bail application can be entertained. As it tantamounts to only cancellation of bail bonds earlier executed, (leave about the power of the court to issue surety notices by forfeiting bonds and for imposing penalty on the bonds forfeited); 'he proper course is to direct the accused to work out the remedy to pay penalty on the previous forfeited bonds as per section 441 to 445 Cr.P.C., 1973 and to submit fresh solvency with self bond for enlarging him by release from custody on payment of penalty of the earlier bonds forfeited without need of enforcing against earlier sureties again. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.