ORDER : Criminal Petition No.4287 of 2024, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C (482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.227 of 2024 of Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 383 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. 2. Criminal Petition No.4338 of 2024, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C (482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.227 of 2024 of Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 383 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. 3. Heard arguments of Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4287 of 2024 and Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.4338 of 2024 and Sri K.S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/State. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners cited precedent. It is argued that civil cases cannot be given criminal colour and in those cases where the dispute is essentially civil in nature prayer for bail in anticipation need be considered favourably and cited: 1. Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 2. Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 3. Jay Shri v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) SCC OLine SC 54 4. Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 268 Adverting to the principles to be considered in pre-arrest bails, learned counsel cited: 5. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 6. Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 749 In the case at hand the petitioners had also filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of F.I.R. It is argued that pendency of such petition is no bar to entertain petitions for anticipatory bail the learned counsel cited: 7. Kamlesh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1822 In the case at hand, there is delay of more than three years in lodging F.I.R. and such aspect requires consideration and cited: 8. Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 588 9. Kamlesh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1822 In the case at hand, there is delay of more than three years in lodging F.I.R. and such aspect requires consideration and cited: 8. Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 588 9. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, (2022) 7 SCC 124 5. The prosecution case details various events that took place between the de facto complainant and the accused and all those factual aspects are elaborately narrated in the written information which was registered as F.I.R. Therefore, the allegations can be seen better by looking at the written information itself which reads as below: “To Date: -06-2024 The Station House Officer, Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam. This is a criminal case against the following persons: 1. Gadde Brahmaji, s/o. Muneswara Rao, aged about 43 years, r/o. D.No.20-20/1, Flat No. 502, Sukshetra East Point, East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam-530017. 2. Gannamani Venkateswara Rao, s/o. G.Janardhan Rao, aged about 46 years, r/o.Flat No.502, Srinilayam, D.No. 54154, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013. 3. M.V.V. Satyanarayana, s/o. Late Ranganayakulu, aged about 53 years, r/o. D.No.4-62-1, Plot No. 25, Lawsonsbay Colony, Visakhapatnam -530017. 1) I am a graduate in Civil Engineering from the University of Mysore. I took up construction works in the State of Karnataka and Telangana. I became a noted builder having built several Government projects including hospitals like NIMHANS, Bangalore, etc., under the name and style of M/s. Haigreeva lnfratech Projects Limited (HIPL). The said HIPL was categorized as 'S' category company with the turnover of about Rs. 400.00 Crores per annum. In the course of business I engaged Gannamaneni Venkateswara Rao as auditor and he is also auditor & close associate of M.V.V. Satyanarayana and his firms. Gadde Brahmaji is their henchman and name-lender. 2) I floated a partnership firm along with my wife Radha Rani. The original objective was developing orphanage, old age home and housing for eligible senior citizens. The name of the firm was Hayagreeva Farms & Developers and a deed of partnership dated 06.03.2006 was executed. The firm was registered on 17.04.2006. Gadde Brahmaji is their henchman and name-lender. 2) I floated a partnership firm along with my wife Radha Rani. The original objective was developing orphanage, old age home and housing for eligible senior citizens. The name of the firm was Hayagreeva Farms & Developers and a deed of partnership dated 06.03.2006 was executed. The firm was registered on 17.04.2006. 3) The crux of this complaint is that the above three persons, owing to their political influence and involving several antisocial elements, taking advantage of our financial problems resorted to physical manhandling, financial coercion, intimidation, blackmail and conspiratorial acts, took hold of our partnership firm, created fake and fabricated documents, trespassed into the property of the firm, created several sham sale deeds and misappropriated the sale proceeds and laundered the money causing Irreparable loss to us and forced us to the point of suicide. We had no access to police. None of the authorities understood our precarious position. Now that the accused lost their political clout, we are coming out and exposing their misdeeds and seeking your protection and justice. The brief details of their criminal acts are as follows: 4) We approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh for purchase of Ac. 12.51 cents in Survey No.92/3 of Yandada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in view of my credentials and annual reports for the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 of my business entity has sold the said extent of Ac.12.51 cents, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1447 dated 06.12.2008. After issuance of the said G.O., we have borrowed monies and paid the total sale consideration of Rs.5,62,95,000/-to the Government for the said land. The Government registered a Deed of Conveyance dated 04.10.2010 registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam. 5) When the Government, owing to extraneous reasons, tried to retract the sale, we filed W.P.No.23908 of 2013, W.P.No.26653 of 2015, W.P.No.36413 of 2014 and W.A.Nos.363 and 370 of 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and succeeded in the litigation and got the false claims defeated. We spent all our time, energy, resources and finances from the year 2006 till 2018 in fighting out the frivolous litigations foisted against us. We succeeded in the litigation with our relentless efforts and at huge cost and we were about to commence construction activities in 2019. We spent all our time, energy, resources and finances from the year 2006 till 2018 in fighting out the frivolous litigations foisted against us. We succeeded in the litigation with our relentless efforts and at huge cost and we were about to commence construction activities in 2019. Unfortunately, there was a change of guard in the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2019. We spent our life for 12 years on this project and again had to face the hostile atmosphere. One of the above mentioned accused, a competitor of our firms, M.V.V. Satyanarayana of M/s. M.V.V. Builders, was elected as Member of Parliament and our Auditor G. Venkateswara Rao, being the protector has become predator and both of them hatched a conspiracy. l was constrained, forced and coerced to sign a document named as agreement of sale on 11.01.2019 agreeing to sell an extent of 5000 square yards in favour of M/s. M.V.V. Builders for a total sale consideration of Rs.15.00 Crores. Neither the G.O. issued by the Government nor the Deed of Conveyance permits such sale, but we were made to do so by them. 6) We were cornered and pressurized to act contrary to our will and volition under the undue pressure of the above said persons resulting in affixing of our signatures on documents prepared by them including blank papers, issuance of special power of attorney, execution of Memorandum of Understanding as well as execution of Deed of Reconstitution of our firm. All these documents are vitiated by fraud, coercion, blackmail and were executed under compelling circumstances. 7) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 19.02.2020 was prepared by them mentioning some details of sales but they stole the original of the said MoU on the pretext of getting signatures of one of them who was not present at the time. They have not returned it. 8) They conducted a meeting, physically dragging us to the meeting, made us to accept their claim that we have to pay to them an amount of Rs.60.00 Crore which was paid them on different occasions for different purposes. They blackmailed that they would approach the Chief Minister and offer the project so that he could be de facto and de jure owner. They cited examples of people in power already taking away several properties in Visakhapatnam like Bay Park, NCC Limited, Radison property, etc. They blackmailed that they would approach the Chief Minister and offer the project so that he could be de facto and de jure owner. They cited examples of people in power already taking away several properties in Visakhapatnam like Bay Park, NCC Limited, Radison property, etc. Soon the subject property of our firm would also be taken away by them. If our property is to be protected it should be transferred in their name and in default, it would be taken away by the people in power. 9) G.Venkateswara Rao being our Auditor/Creditor/Facilitator/ a Close Associate for a period of more than 2 decades himself joined the conspiracy and we had no other option except to follow the deceitful, dishonest and deliberate projections / blackmail tactics / assurances made by them. Under pressure, threat of losing the property, coercion they introduced Brahmaji as one of the partners of our firm. We never agreed to give away 75% of the share of the firm to them. They invested nothing. They brought a Deed of Reconstitution and obtained our signatures. They forcibly also obtained signatures on blank papers. In continuation of the said criminal conspiracy/evil plan to grab our property they forced us to execute a power of attorney dated 28.04.2021 for the purported purpose of liasioning with the Government officials, Municipal Corporation, etc., and also to deal with intending purchasers to purchase the plots. In fact, G. Venkateswara Rao initially attempted for a blanket GPA including the power to sell but restrained himself due to the fact that it would attract stamp duty worth several lakhs and also would not be believed by anybody. G. Venkateswara Rao floated Sukshetra Infra Projects (P) Ltd in the name of his wife and co-accused Brahmaji. In my construction works, the said fictitious entity was given back to back contracts and the money paid by Government to my projects was siphoned off by him through fraudulent accounting. He manipulated the accounts and became illegally enriched. He made me a debtor in the accounts. This weakened me financially and mentally. The three accused took advantage of this and using their political clout and manpower, took over Hayagreeva Farms and Developers, in the guise of repayment of debts. 10) Some of the conversations of the accused with us were recorded. At that stage we were under constant threat to our life. This weakened me financially and mentally. The three accused took advantage of this and using their political clout and manpower, took over Hayagreeva Farms and Developers, in the guise of repayment of debts. 10) Some of the conversations of the accused with us were recorded. At that stage we were under constant threat to our life. To our utter surprise and shock we came to know that the deed of the reconstitution of the partnership firm dated 28-02-2020 was registered with the registrar of firms on 06-03-2020 and it discloses that 75% of the shareholding was given to Brahmaji by us. 11) It can be seen by a naked eye that the relevant pages, i.e., page Nos. 7 to 9 were fabricated and inserted with our forged signatures for unlawful gain as part of the criminal conspiracy to grab our valuable property. The Deed of Reconstitution of the Partnership firm dated 28.02.2020 is a result of fraud, collusion, coercion, forgery, fabrication, blackmail and is not supported by any consideration and is not an agreement or contract in the eye of law in terms of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 12) They got a sanctioned municipal plan behind our back though all supporting documents are forged owing to their influence. They filed both civil and criminal cases against us. The executed sham conveyances and routed the sale proceeds from our firm into MVV-GV Housing, their fictitious firm, in the garb of construction contracts and siphoned off the money. It's a complicated money laundering operation. 13) The accused executed more than 30 sale deeds and several agreements and collected several crores of rupees from gullible purchasers. They have also executed several documents in favour of their own benamies so as to shield their illegal acts from any future action by us. The intention was to throw our property into a web of litigation. The crimes could not be brought to light as we were under continuous threat of kidnapping and physical torture at which the three accused are adept. In fact they used the tact on themselves, which is in public knowledge. 14) Unless the above acts of the accused are thoroughly investigated justice will not be done to us. The above acts constitute serious offences apart from giving raise to civil remedies. In fact they used the tact on themselves, which is in public knowledge. 14) Unless the above acts of the accused are thoroughly investigated justice will not be done to us. The above acts constitute serious offences apart from giving raise to civil remedies. We are requesting the police to immediately take serious action against the accused insofar as the criminal offences are concerned.” 6. It is in such factual context these petitions were filed. 7. The following points are urged in the bail petitions: • Petitioners herein are law-abiding citizens and all the allegations made against them are false, baseless and lack any evidence to support the complaint and it is necessary to look into other attending circumstances emerging from the record to test the falsity of allegations levelled against them in the complaint. • Complaint was filed with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the petitioners and it is purely civil in nature. • Complaint was lodged solely to harass the petitioners as a part of seeking personal and political vendetta and they were implicated in the case without any grounds or justification. • There is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners which would attract any of the alleged offences in the complaint and there is no specific allegation against them as to the nature and manner of threat that would be caused to the de facto complainant. • The allegations made in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of the Sections 120B, 383, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C., and invocation of the process of penal law and registration of crime is a clear case of abuse of process of law. • The petitioners herein were falsely implicated in a private dispute between them and the de facto complainant regarding partnership firm. • The sole intention of the de facto complainant is to target the petitioners by making baseless allegations about the transactions which allegedly took place before three years. There is absolutely no valid reason offered for that inordinate delay and it is a clear case where after change in the ruling dispensation for vengeful reasons criminal prosecution is initiated. 8. On both sides various documents including bank statements were filed. On behalf of the victim-cum-de facto complainant detailed counters were filed. There is absolutely no valid reason offered for that inordinate delay and it is a clear case where after change in the ruling dispensation for vengeful reasons criminal prosecution is initiated. 8. On both sides various documents including bank statements were filed. On behalf of the victim-cum-de facto complainant detailed counters were filed. On behalf of the State the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is in progress. 9. This Court considered the submissions made on both sides and the material placed before this Court and the rulings cited at the bar. The factual allegations in the alleged crime boil down to the following aspects: Among the accused there is conspiracy. They exerted force and coerced the de facto complainant in making him to execute documents and he was made to subscribe signatures on blank papers and the de facto complainant was also blackmailed and fraud was committed on him by the accused. 10. Some of the documents in dispute are: 1. Agreement for sale dated 11.01.2019 was obtained by the accused in favour of M/s. M.V.V. Builders and such agreement was obtained by coercion and the alienation mentioned therein is against the Government Order under which the land was purchased by the partnership firm. 2. Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.02.2020 was stolen by the accused. 3. There is reconstitution of partnership firm under a deed dated 28.02.2020 which was registered with the Registrar of Firms on 06.03.2020 under which 75% of the share holding was stated to have been given to A.1- Sri Gadde Brahmaji. Page Nos.7 to 9 of this deed were inserted with forged signatures of the executant of the deed and it was devoid of consideration. 4. Accused used forged documents and influenced the officers and obtained sanctioned municipal plans and embarked upon executing sham conveyances through fictitious firm. 5. De facto complainant and others were physically dragged to a meeting and were forced to accept to pay Rs.60 Crores to the accused which money was paid by accused at different times for different purposes. It is alleged that the petitioners-accused are politically influential and created terror against the de facto complainant and others and caused all these criminal acts. 11. Record placed by both sides before this Court do indicate that this is not the first case between the parties. It is alleged that the petitioners-accused are politically influential and created terror against the de facto complainant and others and caused all these criminal acts. 11. Record placed by both sides before this Court do indicate that this is not the first case between the parties. The de facto complainant and his wife and M/s. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers which was a partnership firm between the spouses registered on 17.04.2006 filed O.S.No.102 of 2022 as against all the three accused in this crime seeking a declaration that the deed of reconstitution of the partnership firm dated 28.02.2020 is vitiated by fraud, collusion, coercion, forgery, fabrication, blackmailing and that is illegal and unenforceable and is not supported by any consideration and is void and does not bind the parties. A further prayer is made for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from altering or changing the nature of the property in dispute and from creating any third party rights over the property in dispute. 12. Accused No.2 filed O.S.No.46 of 2022 against the de facto complainant alleging that the de facto complainant resorted to slander and libel and thus, defamed accused No.2 and damages to a tune of Rs.10 Crores was prayed. 13. Accused No.1 filed Arbitration O.P.No.10 of 2022 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 alleging disputes among partners and the litigations were required to safeguard the interest of the partnership firm. 14. As one could notice the tussle between the accused and the de facto complainant pertain to various commercial transactions and they have been there for the last more than three years and with all the allegations that are now made in the F.I.R. civil actions were initiated before competent Courts where the matters have been pending. The main supposition of the prosecution is that the various documents that were executed were out of coercion. A document executed out of coercion is voidable at the instance of the party who was coerced. Such of those aspects are subject matters of civil litigation and that do not require any particular comment here. The other allegation is that the signatures of de facto complainant were forged in some of the documents. As one would see from the papers pertaining to civil case that are filed similar allegation has been pending for adjudication. Such of those aspects are subject matters of civil litigation and that do not require any particular comment here. The other allegation is that the signatures of de facto complainant were forged in some of the documents. As one would see from the papers pertaining to civil case that are filed similar allegation has been pending for adjudication. The other allegation that the accused are politically influential and they were able to carry out this criminal activity successfully has also been an allegation made in the civil litigation. Who are the public officials and who were unlawfully influenced by the accused is not disclosed in the F.I.R. and the investigation that has been in progress failed to disclose that aspect of the matter. 15. A fact in dispute may give rise to consequences civil in nature as well as penal. 16. Various offences are alleged. Section 506 I.P.C. provides ‘punishment for criminal intimidation’. Criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 I.P.C. Section 383 I.P.C. defines ‘Extortion’. Referring to them in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.02.2020 was stolen by the accused. The written information of de facto complainant discloses that accused obtained it stating that one of the persons to sign was not present and it was on that pretext the accused took the document to obtain the signature, but they never returned it. The penal provisions referred above show that the persons should have created fear or panic in the mind of the victim that they would injure that person or anyone related to him and by so putting him under such fear they should dishonestly make the person to deliver the document. Neither the F.I.R. nor the subsequent investigation conducted pursuant to it would indicate as to the nature of the threat exerted by the accused and the manner in which it was exerted. Thus, the case alleged is bald. 17. The other offence alleged is under Section 420 I.P.C. which penalizes ‘cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property’. One would refer to the agreement for sale dated 11.01.2019 under which document out of Ac.12.51 cents of land in Survey No.92/3 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural 5,000 square yards was sold to M/s. M.V.V. Builders of A.3 for a sale consideration of Rs.15 Crores. One would refer to the agreement for sale dated 11.01.2019 under which document out of Ac.12.51 cents of land in Survey No.92/3 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural 5,000 square yards was sold to M/s. M.V.V. Builders of A.3 for a sale consideration of Rs.15 Crores. This document was executed by M/s. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers represented by the de facto complainant and it was executed in favour of M/s. M.V.V. Builders represented by A.3. The document indicates that towards sale consideration the purchaser paid Rs.15 Crores to the vendor by way of RTGS. During bail hearing, bank statements are shown by the learned counsel for de facto complainant that such transfer of money through RTGS was not in favour of M/s. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers. However, the learned counsel for A.3 also filed documents showing this bank transfer indicating that Rs.15 Crores was transferred by A.3 in favour of M/s. Haigreeva lnfratech Projects Limited (HIPL) and received by it on behalf of M/s. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers and the payment was made on 11.01.2019. It is undisputed on both sides that the above referred M/s. Haigreeva lnfratech Projects Limited as well as M/s. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers which is a registered partnership firm were floated by the present de facto complainant only. Since the record furnished on both sides do indicate payment and receipt of money the question whether it was paid to one who received it on behalf of the vendor or not is a matter for trial and nothing more needs be stated here. 18. Section 463 I.P.C. defines ‘Forgery’ stating that whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract commits forgery. Section 464 I.P.C. defines what is making a false document. Section 465 I.P.C. provides ‘punishment for forgery’. Section 468 I.P.C. explains about forgery for purpose of cheating and Section 471 I.P.C. provides for using as genuine a forged document. Written information of the de facto complainant and the case of the prosecution alleges all these acts on part of the accused by virtue of which the de facto complainant was made to execute documents. Contention of A.3 in this regard is that he is not a party to any of these documents. Written information of the de facto complainant and the case of the prosecution alleges all these acts on part of the accused by virtue of which the de facto complainant was made to execute documents. Contention of A.3 in this regard is that he is not a party to any of these documents. The contention of all the accused is that all these alleged acts are already pending adjudication before Civil Courts. 19. It is argued that if there was any coercion as alleged by the prosecution Rs.15 Crores would not have been paid towards sale consideration of the plot of land. Learned counsel urges that M/s. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers paid Rs.5,62,95,000/-and got Ac.12.51 cents of land from Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms.No.1447 dated 06.12.2008 and a fraction of the said property is 5,000 square yards which is approximately just about Ac.1.00 cents plus and that was sold for Rs.15 Crores in the year 2019 and payment of such huge price by itself is indicative of the fact that the transactions alleged were fair and to arm-twist they are given criminal colour. 20. Learned counsel for petitioners urges that the F.I.R. lodged is belated by more than three years and that itself is indicative of falsity of the case as a genuine victim would have moved the legal machinery as quickly as possible. The response on behalf of the de facto complainant is that it was the political clout of petitioners that created such situation for the de facto complainant preventing him from taking recourse to legal process at an earlier point of time and that any adventure on part of de facto complainant would have led to his killing also. 21. Having considered the submissions on both sides, it is to be seen that the F.I.R. itself urges that it is only after change of Government in the State of Andhra Pradesh after the recently held Assembly Elections, the victim found himself emboldened and found that accused now do not hold any political power and it was therefore found appropriate for the initiation of criminal proceedings. If that is the case, even two years earlier to registration of F.I.R. on these facts civil actions were initiated against these accused. Therefore, one cannot say that the alleged victim was so panic-stricken even to move legal machinery. If that is the case, even two years earlier to registration of F.I.R. on these facts civil actions were initiated against these accused. Therefore, one cannot say that the alleged victim was so panic-stricken even to move legal machinery. At a bail hearing, when the record discloses inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. it is certainly a matter that is relevant for consideration. On a complete reading of the record, it is seen that while the subject matter is pending before Civil Courts the criminal action is initiated. In such cases, the ratio laid down in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, Jay Shri v. State of Rajasthan and Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka do hold their bearing in considering the case of the petitioners. 22. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. It could be permitted to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative on facts. In cases of pre-arrest bail Courts are to observe whether the applicants have the antecedents of convictions in cognizable offences, likelihood of repeating crimes of similar nature, possibility of fleeing from justice and whether the crime alleged has affected large number of people. There is a need to see and maintain the balance between the possibility of prejudicing free and fair investigation by granting anticipatory bail and the possibility of unjustified harassment, humiliation and detention of the accused by refusing to grant the prayer. 23. Accused No.1 is a person engaged in business, accused No.2 is a Chartered Accountant by profession for decades, accused No.3 was formerly a Member of Parliament and is Managing Director of M/s. M.V.V. Builders. They have their own social roots and are engaged in their occupations. They are permanent residents of the places in which they have been residing within the jurisdiction of the investigation agency. It is never the case of prosecution that they are likely to abscond from the process of law. While hearing a bail petition, the merits of the factual aspect of the crime need not be decided. The proper test to be applied at bail hearing is to see whether it is probable that the persons accused of the offences would make themselves available for investigation and thereafter at trial. While hearing a bail petition, the merits of the factual aspect of the crime need not be decided. The proper test to be applied at bail hearing is to see whether it is probable that the persons accused of the offences would make themselves available for investigation and thereafter at trial. If once the Court is satisfied that their presence for investigation and trial purposes is not in dispute and when the allegations made do not show any particular need for any custodial interrogation and when the facts alleged by themselves do indicate that the crime had come to be registered on change of political establishment in the State, the prayer made by the petitioners need be granted. 24. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners herein/A.1, A.2 and A.3, they shall be enlarged on bail on each executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for a period of three months. The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation by a police officer as and when required. They shall furnish their travel itinerary to the investigating police in the event of their leaving the jurisdiction of the investigation agency. They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. They shall not indulge in similar acts of crime. The petitioners shall regularly appear before the competent Court and participate in pre-trial and trial process without fail.