Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 404 (AP)

V. Srinivasulu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-03-28

T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

body2024
ORDER : (T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. ) The Petitioner/Accused has preferred this Petition, under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr. P.C.') seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.42 of 2023 of Kavali II Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 417, 410, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C’) and section 82 of Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘R.A’). 2. The Prosecution's case, in a grave turn of events, is that the Joint Sub Registrar, Kavali, lodged a complaint stating that a document styled as a sale deed was registered on 13.01.2010 at Sub Registrar Office, Kavali, which was executed by M/s Suvarna Aqua Farm & Exports Limited, Hyderabad, in favour of one Kasula Badulla (A.1) for consideration of Rs.11,88,000/- for an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy. No. 214 of Maddurpadu village. No.214 of Maddurpadu village. Subsequently, 13 years after that, A.1 executed three documents for an extent of 30 Ankanams, 35 Ankanams and 35 Ankanams in favour of Konduru Nagamani, P.Subbaiah and P.Kaveri Yedukondalu respectively, for consideration of Rs.5,28,000/-, Rs.6,16,000/- and Rs.6,16,000/- in Sy.No.214 of Maddurpadu village. A.2 to A.4 are the identifying witnesses for the above-said transactions. Subsequently, on 18.04.2023, the aforesaid three sale deeds were cancelled by A.1 along with the purchasers. In the meanwhile, Defacto Complainant received the representation from A.1 under the RTI Act, wherein he mentioned that he purchased an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.214 of Maddurpadu village vide document No.3269/10 and that without his knowledge, the above said three sale deeds were executed by some other person forging his signatures and on such information, he examined the sale deeds and cancellation deeds and noticed some other person with the same name presented and registered all the above-said documents by enclosing Aadhar and Voter card, and he found Kasula Badulla was impersonated and fraudulently presented the documents. As per section 82 of Registration Act, it provides Prosecution for any offence under the Act coming to the knowledge of registering authority in his official capacity. Thus, the Defacto Complainant sought an investigation into the matter. Based on the complaint, the case in the above crime was registered. 3. As per section 82 of Registration Act, it provides Prosecution for any offence under the Act coming to the knowledge of registering authority in his official capacity. Thus, the Defacto Complainant sought an investigation into the matter. Based on the complaint, the case in the above crime was registered. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner strongly asserts that the Petitioner is innocent and not involved in any of the offences mentioned; there is no material connecting the Petitioner to the alleged offences; the Petitioner's role was limited to being an identifying witness for the cancellation of sale deeds. Learned counsel emphasize that the Petitioner was not the person who executed the sale deeds or cancelled them. It is highlighted that there are no allegations of collusion between the vendor, attestors, and the petitioner to fabricate documents. The learned counsel argues that being an attestor or identifying witness does not equate to being an executant of the document. The counsel points out that the real person, Badulla, who allegedly suffered from the fraudulent transactions, has not lodged any complaint. This suggests that there might be discrepancies in the case. The counsel alleges that the complaint was lodged by the Joint Sub Registrar at the instance of a local ruling MLA who is politically hostile to the Petitioner. This raises questions about the motivation behind the complaint. It is argued that there was a delay in lodging the complaint, which may cast doubt on its validity and the urgency of the matter. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner on the ground that the investigation is not completed. 5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in the report. Consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. 6. In Mahipal V. Rajesh, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime. It is settled law that when granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the case's merits has not to be undertaken. It is settled law that when granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the case's merits has not to be undertaken. That did not mean that whilst granting bail, some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted did not have to be indicated. 7. The established legal principle is that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine; it should only be provided when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy. Considering the gravity of the offence and the potential punishment in light of the allegations, the petitioner has not established a prima facie case for bail under Section 438 of (Cr.P.C.). 8. In a decision reported in between Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that; “Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty” 9. In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1980( 2 Supreme Court Cases 565, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answers upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict”. 10. The Prosecution alleges that the Petitioner, along with A.1 to A.3, conspired to sell the lands belonging to K. Badulla (LW.6). They purportedly created fake Aadhar cards, affixing the photograph of Udayagiri Giri Babu, and fabricated documents for the sale of land. It is claimed that the Accused parties created documents for the sale of land to various individuals, including Koduru Nagamani (LW.8) and P.Yedukondalu (LW.9), using the fake Aadhar cards and impersonating K. Badulla (LW.6). The transactions involved significant amounts of money as consideration for the land. A.1, impersonating as K. Badulla, allegedly registered the fraudulent documents, with A.2 and A.3 acting as identifying witnesses for the registration process. One of the land purchasers, LW.7, discovered discrepancies when they visited the land and found it to be different from what was shown earlier. LW.7 confronted A.3 and A.4 about the change of land. A.1, impersonating as K. Badulla, allegedly registered the fraudulent documents, with A.2 and A.3 acting as identifying witnesses for the registration process. One of the land purchasers, LW.7, discovered discrepancies when they visited the land and found it to be different from what was shown earlier. LW.7 confronted A.3 and A.4 about the change of land. In response to the discovery of the fraudulent activities, A.4 assured LW.7 to LW.9 that the registration would be cancelled, and their money returned. Subsequently, on 18.04.2023, the earlier registration documents were cancelled, with A.3 and A.4 serving as identifying witnesses. Upon receiving a representation from K. Badulla and the Joint Sub Registrar, an examination of the registered sale deeds and cancellation deeds revealed the impersonation and fraudulent transactions. This led to the lodging of a complaint. The Prosecution's case suggests that the Petitioner, along with the other Accused parties, actively participated in a scheme to defraud individuals through fabricated land transactions, including impersonation and the creation of fake documents. These allegations form the basis of the charges against the Petitioner/A.4. 11. In response to the Petitioner's claim of innocence, this court considers several factors, including the Petitioner's role as an identifying witness for the cancellation of the sale deed. If the Petitioner maintains his innocence, he should be able to provide a plausible explanation for his actions in serving as an identifying witness. Failure to provide such an explanation weakens the Petitioner's case. 12. Regarding the argument that other Accused parties were released on regular bail, the court may not necessarily view this as grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Each case is evaluated based on its own merits, and the fact that others were released on bail does not automatically entitle the Petitioner to anticipatory bail. Cooperation with the investigation is indeed a significant factor, and the court may consider whether the Petitioner has cooperated fully with the authorities. Ultimately, the decision regarding anticipatory bail will depend on various factors, including the strength of the evidence against the Petitioner, the seriousness of the allegations, and the Petitioner's level of cooperation with the investigation. 13. Regarding the Prosecution’s case, the investigation remains incomplete. The anticipatory bail for the Petitioner may adversely impact the ongoing investigation. There is a possibility of threats to the witnesses, and a prima facie case involving the Petitioner in a severe case exists. 13. Regarding the Prosecution’s case, the investigation remains incomplete. The anticipatory bail for the Petitioner may adversely impact the ongoing investigation. There is a possibility of threats to the witnesses, and a prima facie case involving the Petitioner in a severe case exists. The nature of the accusations is grave. The investigation agency has not been able to interrogate the Accused/Petitioner. Custodial interrogation is deemed necessary to extract all material information about the offence. The established legal principle is that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule; it should only be granted when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy. 14. It is submitted on behalf of the Prosecution that the Police are not able to capture the Petitioner even after a lapse of considerable time. It is also not the Petitioner's case that he cooperated with the investigation. The investigation in this case has not been completed. The release of the Petitioner may adversely affect the investigation process. There is every possibility of threatening the witnesses as apprehended by the Prosecution. To bring out all material information relating to the offence, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required. 15. The custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the allegations made against the Petitioner. Denying custodial interrogation could result in significant loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation, adversely affecting its integrity. The grant of anticipatory at the investigation stage may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting helpful information and the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation will elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order when he is interrogated. 16. After evaluating the facts of the case, the gravity of the allegations, the materials gathered, and the materials to be collected in the course of the investigation, it is not desirable to release the Petitioner on anticipatory bail. In that view of the matter, the present Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application. 18. As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. In that view of the matter, the present Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application. 18. As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.