Katta Anjaneya Kalidasu @Kittu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

T.Mallikarjuna Rao, J

The Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A1 herein to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.40 of 2024 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari District.

A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that the incident occurred prior to on 28.01.2024 at Sub-Registrar Office, Tadepalligudem Town and the same was reported on 28.01.2024 at 5.00 p.m., wherein the complainant reported that 9-35 Acres in Survey No.110 in Gopinadhapatnam Village, Unguturu Mandal, inherited from her husband through her maternal uncle, when they came to know that recently A1 to A3 have conspired together and they created false documents by forging the signatures of the deceased Nageswara Rao to write conspiratorial and have written the property to Pujari Krishna Kishore/A3, who has nothing to do with the field and the deceased. Later it came to know that A1 got Ac.5-00 cents and A2 got Ac.4-35 cents by creating a Will with signatures and registered two purchase deeds. After verified the revenue records, there has been a mutation in the name of A3.

No representation on behalf of the defacto complainant, despite posting the matter for ‘Order’. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are property disputes among the family members of the defacto complainant. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property in R.S.No.110 of Gopinadhapatnam Village. He further submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged against him and a false case has been registered and as such, he requested this Court to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State vehemently opposed the application contending that investigation is at crucial stage. He prays to dismiss the bail petition.

In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record.

As seen from the record, the contentions of the petitioner that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land in Sy.No.110 of Gopinadhapatnam Village through registered sale deed dated 23.06.2022. In support of his contention, the petitioner has filed the copy of the registered sale deed dated 23.06.2022. A reading of the said registered sale deed, shows that the vendor of the petitioner got the title over the property by virtue of a Will said to be executed on 29.11.2021 by one Puli Nageswara Rao. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has paid sale consideration amount of Rs.80,45,000/- to his vendor. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not relative to his vendor and as such the allegations made in the report that the petitioner colluded with A3 and created false document is in-correct. To show his bonafides, the petitioner has placed copy of the income-tax returns, which shows the land transaction. The above land transaction held on 23.06.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that having paid such huge amount the petitioner has no reason to create forged documents, otherwise he could have purchase the similar type of property. It seems that the document filed by the petitioner shown there is prima-facie dispute among the family members of defacto complainant and a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2020 is filed by one Tammisetti Venkata Lakshmi, wherein the defacto complainant is shown as defendant/respondent No.13 in the suit. The property covered under the sale deed shown as ‘C’ schedule in R.S.No.110 of Gopinadhapatnam Village. A reading of plaint in O.S.No.24 of 2020, prima-facie suggests that it is the stand of the plaintiff therein that the 1st defendant created a settlement deed dated 23.07.2018 in favour of 13th defendant, who is a defacto complainant in this crime. A reading of the averments of paragraph No.13 in O.S.No.24 of 2020 also indicates the reference about the partition deed dated 08.06.2015, which is said to be a false document. A reading of the plaint shows that several transactions have been held regarding the plaint schedule property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no suit has been filed questioning the execution of the Will by one Puli Nageswara Rao and he further submits that a suit in O.S.No.329 of 2023 is filed against the petitioner herein and A2 seeking relief of permanent injunction against them in respect of same schedule. The plaint schedule prima-facie suggests that the property covered under sale deed is also the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff in the said suit claimed tenancy right over the schedule property and the 1st defendant-Puli Venkayya is shown as landlord.

After considering the material on record, this Court prima-facie finds force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are disputes between the defacto complainant and others regarding the title of the disputed property and he is a bonafide purchaser of the property by paying considerable amount. As already indicated that the Will executed by the vendor of the petitioner is a genuine or not cannot be decided at this stage. The petitioner has permanent abode at Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District and there is no possibility of their fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no antecedents have been reported against the petitioner herein and he undertakes that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1 with the following conditions.

i. The petitioner/A1 is directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari District within two weeks from today and the petitioner/A1 shall be released on his furnishing personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavarti District.

ii. The petitioner/A1 shall attend before the Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavarti District on every Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. and 1 p.m. for a period of three months.

iii. The petitioner/A13 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer and shall co-operate with the investigating officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.