Kesana Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Telangana

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in Crime Nos.470, 476, 471 and 475 of 2026 respectively on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sanga Reddy District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, “IPC”).

Heard Mr. Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

These petitions arise from Crime Nos. 470, 471, 475 and 476 of 2026 concerning transactions relating to Sri Sainath Gardens Layout, developed by GPR Housing Private Limited under the management of petitioner/Accused No.1 and at relevant time the petitioner/Accused No.3 was the General Manger of the Company. Though lodged by different purchasers concerning different plots, all four crimes arise substantially from the same series of transactions, particularly the execution of Sale Deed No.60 of 2026 in favour of M/s. LSML Private Limited. The common allegations concern suppression of title deeds and prior transactions, manipulation of revenue records, fraudulent transfer of property, and infringement of the rights of bona fide purchasers.

In Crime No.470 of 2026, concerning Plot Nos.237, 238, 253 and 254 purchased under a registered sale deed dated 11.10.2004, the complainant alleges that, although the layout comprised about 3,100 plots across 70 survey numbers, the sale deeds referred only to 12 survey numbers and suppressed the remaining survey numbers and link title document No.3264 of 1998. The accused are further alleged to have manipulated land records and title documents, causing title disputes, mutation issues and financial loss. The crime was registered under Sections 420, 465 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC.

Crime No.471 of 2026 concerns Plot Nos.2, 3 and 20. The allegation is that, after selling the residential plots, the accused falsely represented the land as agricultural land and created a mortgage in favour of Punjab National Bank, leading to SARFAESI proceedings and ultimately to Sale Deed No.60 of 2026 in favour of M/s. LSML Private Limited. It is further alleged that the accused trespassed into the layout and demolished compound walls and other structures despite subsisting injunction orders. The allegations include cheating, forgery, illegal mortgage, fraudulent sale, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy.

Crime No.475 of 2026 relates to Plot No.1 and contains substantially similar allegations of suppression of prior sale transactions and layout approvals, creation of an illegal mortgage, execution of Sale Deed No.60 of 2026, manipulation of revenue records, and subsequent trespass and demolition. The crime was registered under Sections 318(4), 324(5), 336, 338, 340 and 61(2) BNS.

Crime No.476 of 2026 concerns Plot No.103. The principal allegation is that, despite the DRT attachment order dated 22.08.2025, the accused executed Sale Deed No.60 of 2026, manipulated revenue records, procured illegal mutations and Pattadar Passbooks, and created third-party rights over the attached property in conspiracy with the Directors of M/s. LSML Private Limited and certain revenue officials. The complainant also seeks cancellation of Sale Deed No.60 of 2026 and consequential revenue entries. The crime was registered under Sections 318(4), 324(5), 336, 338, 340, 61(2) and 198 BNS.

Thus, while the complainants, plots and certain factual particulars differ, all four crimes substantially arise from the same transactions concerning Sri Sainath Gardens Layout and Sale Deed No.60 of 2026. In particular, Crime No.470 concerns alleged suppression of survey particulars and link title documents; Crime Nos.471 and 475 concern the alleged illegal mortgage, resultant SARFAESI proceedings, execution of Sale Deed No.60 of 2026, and subsequent trespass and demolition; and Crime No.476 specifically concerns the alleged suppression of the DRT attachment order, manipulation of revenue records, illegal mutations and Pattadar Passbooks, and creation of third-party rights over the attached property.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all four crimes arise from transactions relating to Sri Sainath Gardens Layout and essentially concern competing claims of title, ownership and conveyance of immovable property. The disputes arise from registered sale deeds, mortgage transactions, revenue records, DRT proceedings and measures under the SARFAESI Act, which are predominantly civil in nature. It is contended that the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to exert pressure in pending civil disputes. None of the FIRs attributes any specific overt act or individual role to the petitioner, except describing him as the General Manager of GPR Housing Private Limited; the allegations are omnibus and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Since the prosecution case rests entirely on registered documents, revenue records, DRT orders and other public documents already available with the Investigating Agency, no recovery is required and custodial interrogation is wholly unwarranted.

In Crime No.470 of 2026, the FIR was lodged nearly 21½ years after execution of the registered sale deed in 2004, without explaining the inordinate delay. The allegations concerning suppression of survey numbers and title documents involve matters requiring adjudication by a competent civil court. The petitioner is 60 years of age, suffers from hypertension and chronic diabetes, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and comply with any conditions imposed by this Court.

In Crime No.471 of 2026, the allegations arise from mortgage transactions, DRT proceedings and SARFAESI measures, which operate under a special statutory framework and predominantly concern civil rights and liabilities. No specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner, and the case is based on documentary evidence already available with the Investigating Agency.

In Crime No.475 of 2026, it is submitted that the FIR similarly seeks to criminalize a civil dispute arising from competing title claims. It neither discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offences nor attributes any specific overt act to the petitioner, and is based entirely on documentary evidence concerning the same property transactions involved in the earlier crimes.

In Crime No.476 of 2026, the allegations relating to the DRT attachment order, revenue mutations and Pattadar Passbooks likewise concern disputes over title and revenue entries. The allegations are founded exclusively on official records already available with the Investigating Agency, no overt act is attributed to the petitioner, and custodial interrogation is therefore unnecessary.

It is finally submitted that all four FIRs arise from the same series of property transactions, are predominantly documentary in nature, concern essentially civil disputes, and disclose no specific criminal act attributable to the petitioner. Further this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the Accused No.1, who is the Managing Director of the company and the petitioner is only the employee. Thus on the principle of parity and as the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by this Court, anticipatory bail is sought.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes anticipatory bail, contending that the petitioner, as General Manager of GPR Housing Private Limited, played a key role in fraudulent transactions relating to Sri Sainath Gardens Layout. The investigation has allegedly disclosed prima facie material showing his involvement in a larger conspiracy involving suppression of material title documents, manipulation of revenue records, subsequent sale transactions, and infringement of the rights of bona fide purchasers. All four crimes arise from the same real estate venture and disclose a continuing course of fraudulent conduct affecting several purchasers. Further pleaded that, the Investigating Officer has collected substantial documentary evidence, including registered sale deeds, mortgage documents, revenue and municipal records, DRT proceedings, mutation records and other public documents, and has recorded statements of material witnesses. The investigation has also revealed the absence of final layout approval and NALA conversion. It is therefore contended that custodial interrogation is necessary to unravel the conspiracy, ascertain the role of each accused, identify other participants and collect further evidence.

In Crime No.470 of 2026, the investigation allegedly disclosed suppression of survey particulars, title documents and statutory approvals while selling the plots. Reliance is placed on the statement of the former Sarpanch, who allegedly stated that the developers had not produced complete documents for obtaining the requisite statutory approvals. Custodial interrogation is therefore sought to investigate the conspiracy underlying the plot sales.

In Crime No.471 of 2026, the prosecution submits that the petitioner was involved in mortgaging the property after its sale to purchasers and thereafter executing Sale Deed No.60 of 2026 in favour of M/s. LSML Private Limited, despite pending DRT proceedings. The material collected allegedly indicates suppression of the existing purchasers’ rights, warranting investigation into the petitioner's role in the mortgage and subsequent conveyance.

In Crime No.475 of 2026, the investigation allegedly reveals suppression of prior plot sales and subsequent transactions in favour of M/s. LSML Private Limited despite the subsisting rights of earlier purchasers. The documentary evidence and witness statements are stated to prima facie establish the petitioner's involvement in a conspiracy to re-sell already conveyed plots, necessitating custodial interrogation for effective investigation.

In Crime No.476 of 2026, the investigation concerns alleged suppression of the DRT attachment order, execution of Sale Deed No.60 of 2026, manipulation of revenue records, procurement of illegal mutations and creation of third party rights over the attached property. The material collected allegedly prima facie establishes the petitioner's involvement in the conspiracy.

The Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner is an accused in all four crimes, which arise from the same real estate venture and disclose a consistent pattern of fraudulent conduct. As the investigation is at a crucial stage, grant of anticipatory bail is likely to prejudice the ongoing investigation. However fairly admitted that the Accused No.1 who is Managing Director of the Company has been granted with Anticipatory bail, however, dismissal of the anticipatory bail petitions is sought.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

The material on record shows that all four FIRs arise from transactions relating to the development of Sri Sainath Gardens Layout by GPR Housing Private Limited. Though lodged by different purchasers concerning different plots, they substantially arise from the same real estate venture and involve common allegations of suppression of title documents and prior transactions, manipulation of revenue records, execution of Sale Deed No.60 of 2026 in favour of M/s. LSML Private Limited, and prejudice to bona fide purchasers. The distinction between the FIRs is confined essentially to their immediate factual circumstances.

Crime No.470 of 2026 principally concerns the original sales of 2004, wherein certain survey numbers and link title documents are alleged to have been suppressed. The transactions predate the FIR by nearly 21 years. While delay is not by itself decisive, it assumes significance in assessing the necessity of custodial interrogation, particularly when the allegations are founded on registered documents and public records already available to the Investigating Agency.

Crime Nos.471 and 475 of 2026 concern the subsequent mortgage, SARFAESI proceedings, execution of Sale Deed No.60 of 2026, and alleged trespass and demolition, involving the legal effect of mortgage transactions, DRT proceedings, SARFAESI measures, and competing claims of title and ownership, which substantially fall for determination before competent civil courts and statutory forums. Crime No.476 of 2026 concerns the alleged suppression of the DRT attachment order, execution of the said sale deed, and procurement of illegal mutations and Pattadar Passbooks through manipulation of revenue records. These allegations too are substantially verifiable from DRT proceedings, revenue entries and registered instruments.

The existence of a civil dispute does not, by itself, exclude criminal liability; equally, criminal law cannot be used to give a criminal colour to a civil or property dispute unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are independently established. In Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that execution of a sale deed by a person claiming ownership ordinarily gives rise to civil consequences unless the ingredients of offences such as forgery or cheating are made out. In VESA Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, the Court reiterated that disputes predominantly concerning title and contractual rights should not ordinarily be given a criminal colour.

Significantly, the prosecution case rests almost entirely on documentary evidence registered sale deeds, mortgage documents, revenue and municipal records, DRT proceedings, mutation records and other public documents, which have already been collected, together with statements of material witnesses. No material has been placed to show that any incriminating article or undiscovered document remains in the exclusive possession of the petitioner or requires recovery from him.

Section 35 of the BNSS requires arrest to satisfy the statutory conditions and prohibits mechanical arrest. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that arrest should not be routine merely because an offence is cognizable. Likewise, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, emphasizes that where custodial interrogation is not genuinely necessary, particularly in a substantially documentary investigation, anticipatory bail may be granted to protect personal liberty.

Although the prosecution asserts that custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the role of the accused, confront the petitioner with the collected material and unravel the alleged conspiracy, the principal documentary evidence and witness statements have already been collected. Mere assertion of conspiracy, without specific material showing that the petitioner possesses exclusive information incapable of being obtained otherwise, does not by itself justify custodial interrogation.

The fact that the petitioner is an accused in four FIRs arising from the same real estate venture cannot, by itself, warrant denial of anticipatory bail. The multiplicity of complaints results from different purchasers questioning substantially the same series of transactions and cannot automatically justify arrest in the absence of the statutory requirements under Section 35 of the BNSS.

The petitioner is stated to be 60 years of age, suffering from age related ailments, and has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation. There is no material indicating that he may evade investigation or attempted to abscond. In these circumstances, and in the absence of specific material demonstrating the indispensability of custodial interrogation, the interests of the investigation can adequately be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions while extending protection under Section 482 of the BNSS.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.