JUDGMENT R Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.566 of 2020 of Markapur Town Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC. 2. The case of the petitioner is that accused No.1 taken the lorry for rental basis from the de fact complainant and accused No.1 did not pay the rent and did not hand over the lorry to the de facto complainant and on that the de facto complainant enquired about the lorry and he came to know that the accused No.1 sold away the lorry to others on that the de facto complainant contacted accused No.1 through phone and demanded to return the lorry and on that accused No.1 threaten the de facto complainant with dire consequences. In the confessional statement of accused No.1, named the petitioner as mechanic who have changed the chasis number and engine number of the lorry. On the basis of this confessional statement, the petitioner has been included as accused No.2 in this case even though the petitioner was not in any manner contacted to these offences. 3. Ms. M.Vinodin Ruth, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was past enmity between the accused No.1 and the petitioner and due to this enmity, the accused No.1 has willfully and falsely implicated the petitioner by naming him as the person who changed the chasis number and engine number of the stolen lorries. 4. She submits that even though the petitioner had nothing to do with any of these offences, the police are insisting the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on every day and there is every damage of the petitioner being arrested for no fault on his. 5. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail and contends that the petitioner is involved in all the offences and the claim of the petitioner that he is being roped into the offences solely on account of the false statement of accused No.1 is not correct. 7. After having heard both sides, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. 8. 7. After having heard both sides, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek regular bail. Upon such surrender and application made by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider the same expeditiously and pass orders on merits. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.