Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 456 (AP)

Kattubadi Ameer Basha v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-07-14

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.68 of 2020 of III Town Police Station, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The alleged offences against him are under Sections 464, 465, 468, 471 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC. 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.4 to 14 have applied for grant of license, for which the concerned authorities insisted for production of relevant certificates along with the building plans. Accordingly, when they approached accused Nos.1 to 3 that the certificates and building plans were issued in their name showing that the plans were approved. On production of the same, it came to light that the said building plans are forged and they are fabricated. In connection with the same, a crime was registered and investigated. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested. After their arrest, on interrogation, accused Nos.2 and 3 disclosed before the Police that the petitioner, who is accused No.4, is the main person behind the crime, who has created these certificates and forged the signatures of the concerned authorities. Therefore, they have also arrayed the petitioner as accused No.4 in the crime. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of the alleged statements said to have been given by accused Nos.2 and 3. So, the accusation made against him is not prima facie well founded. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that after the arrest of accused Nos.2 and 3, on the basis of the disclosure statements given by them, it came to light the role played by the petitioner, who is accused No.4, and it reveals that he is the main person behind the crime in creating certificates and building plans with forged signatures of the authorities concerned. Therefore, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, as it is a case relating to fabricating the documents and forging the signatures of the concerned authorities that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Perused the record. 9. The record reveals that the certificates relating to sanction of plan approvals and building plans etc, which are produced for the purpose of availing loans and for obtaining electricity service connection to the house, were fabricated and forged. After the arrest of accused Nos.2 and 3, as per the prosecution version, the role played by the petitioner, who is accused No.4, came to light and their disclosure statements disclosed that the petitioner played a main role in fabricating the said certificates and building plans and forged the signatures of the concerned authorities. So, investigation has a long way to go. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the accusation made against the petitioner, as it is the case of the prosecution that he is the main person behind creating these documents with the forged signatures of the authorities concerned, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.