Mandha Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner apprehends that he may be arrayed as an accused in an unregistered crime based on the report dated 25.08.2026, lodged by Respondent No. 2, alleging offences punishable under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code at Subedari Police Station.

Heard Mr.G.V.S.S.Sruthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

The relevant facts, in brief, are that Respondent No. 2/de facto complainant is said to have entered into an agreement for the purchase of the land on 08.08.2020, towards which he paid a total amount of Rs.18 lakhs. However, when he came to know that the petitioner was not the owner of the property, he sought the return of the amount paid by him. However, the petitioner is said to have made him run from pillar to post for about six years. Basing on the said report, the Subedari Police are conducting a preliminary enquiry before registration of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and that the allegations made against him are baseless. He submits that, from the sale agreement itself, it is clear that the petitioner is the agreement holder in respect of the agricultural land proposed to be sold. When, subsequently, Respondent No. 2 failed to adhere to the understanding, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 09.05.2024, which was received by Respondent No. 2 on 14.05.2024. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 remained silent and has now lodged the police report only with a view to giving a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute. If Respondent No. 2 is aggrieved, he ought to have availed himself of the other appropriate remedies available to him under civil law. Having remained silent for such a long period and now lodging a police report clearly demonstrates the ulterior motive behind the same. However, though the petitioner is willing to co-operate with investigation and abide by any condition as he is apprehending arrest by the police, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the police have received the report lodged by Respondent No. 2 dated 25.08.2026 and, after making an entry in the General Diary, are conducting a preliminary enquiry, and that, so far, no crime has been registered. He further submits that, if the enquiry results in a cognizable offence, the police concerned shall strictly abide by the procedure prescribed under law. He further submits that, after registration of the crime, though notice was served on the petitioner for the purpose of enquiry, he has not turned up, and that registration of the crime may require the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition

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

The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that, after entering into an agreement with Respondent No. 2 and the petitioner receiving Rs.18 lakhs from him, when Respondent No. 2 subsequently came to know about the ownership of the property and sought refund of the amount paid under the agreement, failed to return the same and allegedly made him run from pillar to post for its recovery. Thus, the allegation essentially arises out of the agreement, the ownership of the property, and the subsequent demand for refund.

It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not ordinarily required to meticulously examine the allegations or appreciate the evidence so as to record findings on disputed questions of fact. Under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court must balance the petitioner's personal liberty with the legitimate requirements of investigation, having regard, inter alia, to the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioner, the possibility of influencing witnesses or obstructing justice, and the genuine necessity, if any, for custodial interrogation. As held by the Constitution Benches in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the power to grant anticipatory bail is to be exercised judicially and having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Grant of such protection does not preclude a lawful and effective investigation, and appropriate conditions may be imposed to secure the petitioner's cooperation.

In the present case, the allegations principally arise from the agreement of sale, the ownership of the subject property, payment of Rs.18 lakhs thereunder, and the subsequent demand for refund, which matters can be investigated on the basis of relevant documents and other material. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no specific material is placed before this Court demonstrating that his custodial interrogation is indispensable. The mere assertion of such requirement, without circumstances showing why effective investigation cannot be conducted while the petitioner is protected by anticipatory bail, cannot by itself warrant denial of such protection. Accordingly, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material presently available, and the petitioner's willingness to cooperate, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer for anticipatory bail merits favourable consideration, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his availability and cooperation with the investigation and with the course of justice.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.