Mukka Siddaiah vs The State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No. 1097 of 2025 of Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

Heard Mr. S.V.S.S.R. Krishna Uppuluri, learned counsel, argued on behalf of Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, who is the son of Late B. Danaiah, claims rights over the land situated in Sy.No.20, Chengicharla. It is stated that his father, B. Danaiah, and one G. Krishna Kudbi jointly purchased Ac.2-13 gts., under Sale Deed bearing Document No.4585 of 1986 and subsequently partitioned the said property. B. Danaiah died on 30.08.1988. It is alleged that, after the death of Danaiah, Accused No.1 and the petitioner/Accused No.2, who had purchased the adjoining land admeasuring Ac.2-27 gts., created a purported and fabricated layout extending over the lands belonging to the de facto complainant's father and G. Krishna Kudbi. It is further alleged that they sold several plots to third parties by falsely representing their title and authority under various documents during the period from 1987 to 2018.

It is further alleged that General Power of Attorney bearing GPA No.196 of 1988, which had been executed in favour of Accused No.1, was misused after the death of Danaiah in respect of an extent of 270 square yards. It is alleged that the document was registered by using Danaiah's photograph and forged thumb impression, falsely representing that he was alive and present at the time of registration. The de facto complainant further alleges that the other accused persons, who had purchased portions of the disputed property with knowledge of the alleged fraudulent transactions, attempted to encroach upon Plot Nos.54 and 55. It is also alleged that Accused No.1 created another false GPA and dealt with Ac.1-13½ gts., which was thereafter transferred to A. Krishna and subsequently to one Nuzhat Fatima, allegedly resulting in encroachment upon the land of G. Krishna Kudbi. The de facto complainant has also referred to Crime No.202 of 2017 and various civil proceedings concerning the same property and the alleged encroachments. On the basis of these allegations relating to forgery, use of forged documents, fraudulent alienation in concert, and encroachment, the crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 72-year-old retired employee and has been falsely implicated in a longstanding property dispute relating to Sy.No.20, arising out of transactions dating back to 1986-1988. It is contended that Accused No.1 and the petitioner/Accused No.2 jointly purchased Ac.2-27 gts. under a registered sale deed and that the property was also the subject matter of civil proceedings, including O.S. No.1784 of 2022. It is further contended that the specific allegation regarding the forging of the photograph and thumb impression of the deceased Danaiah is attributed to Accused Nos.1 and 3, and that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner with regard to forging, fabricating, presenting, or intentionally using any forged document. According to the learned counsel, the allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature.

It is further submitted that the FIR was registered in September 2025, despite the transactions and disputes having originated several decades ago. The case is predominantly documentary in nature, and the relevant records are available with the Registration Department; therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unnecessary. It is submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen, is a permanent resident, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that the case relates to the alleged fraudulent sale and registration of land. It is contended that the petitioner misused the General Power of Attorney after the death of the principal and after cancellation of the General Power of Attorney and, despite being aware of its invalidity, informed Accused No.3 thereof and participated in the alleged conspiracy to alienate the property for wrongful gain. It is further submitted that an extent of 277 square yards was allegedly registered in the name of Accused No.3 by using Danaiah's photograph and forged thumb impression, and that the petitioner/Accused No.2 acted as an intermediary in the transaction and allegedly received an amount of Rs.3 lakhs.

It is also alleged that Accused Nos.1 and 2 converted about Ac.5-00 gts. into plots and sold the same to various persons. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation prima facie discloses the active involvement of the petitioner/Accused No.2 in the alleged conspiracy and fraudulent transactions involving offences of forgery, use of forged documents, and fraudulent registration of immovable property. It is further submitted that, although seven witnesses have been examined, the investigation is still in progress and the prosecution apprehends that, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he may not cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

The allegations against the petitioner relate to cheating, forgery, use of forged documents and fraudulent registration of immovable property. The principal allegation concerning the preparation and use of the photograph and forged thumb impression of deceased B. Danaiah requires investigation and appreciation of evidence at the appropriate stage. At the stage of anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, but must consider the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the material collected and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The alleged confession or incriminating statement of a co-accused, by itself, cannot constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner and can only be considered in accordance with law along with other material. It is settled principle that a co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence against another accused and cannot, by itself, form the basis for a finding of guilt. The same principle is reflected in Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, subject to its statutory requirements.

Further, the prosecution case substantially rests upon documentary evidence, including registered sale deeds, the death certificate and registration records, some of which have already been secured by the investigating agency. The alleged transactions date back to 1988 and the underlying property dispute has also resulted in civil proceedings. Seven witnesses have, according to the prosecution, already been examined and the relevant documents secured.

The subsequent addition of Section 467 IPC, though serious, cannot by itself establish the necessity for custodial interrogation. The gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration, but must be assessed along with the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the nature of the evidence, the possibility of abscondence, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the stage of investigation, and whether the investigation can be effectively conducted without arrest. While custodial interrogation may be necessary in an appropriate case to uncover the role of an accused, trace transactions or discover material, the predominantly documentary nature of a case is a relevant circumstance in assessing such necessity.

In the present case, considering the considerable age of the alleged transactions, the documentary nature of the evidence, the fact that relevant records have already been secured and seven witnesses examined, the pendency of civil proceedings concerning the property, and the petitioner's undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, this Court finds no material, at this stage, demonstrating that his custodial interrogation is indispensable. The petitioner's age is also a relevant, though not determinative, circumstance. Balancing the petitioner's right to personal liberty against the legitimate requirements of investigation, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail, however, shall be subject to appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

It is made clear that observations made herein are prima facie confined solely to the adjudication of present petition for anticipatory bail and shall not prejudice the investigation or trial. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.