AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J
Criminal Petition No.7703 of 2024, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the petitioners/A.6 and A.7 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.258 of 2024 of Kovvur Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C.
Criminal Petition No.8222 of 2024, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.258 of 2024 of Kovvur Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C.
Heard arguments of Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
Perused the record.
F.I.R in this case was registered on 04.10.2024. The de facto complainant-cum-victim is a woman. Ac.1.70 cents of land in R.S.Nos.322/4A and 322/4B within the limits of Kovvur Municipality is allegedly owned by the victim woman as she had got it as her stridhana property through her mother. Her mother died intestate on 14.04.2021. The grievance raised by her is that while she owns and possess this property, her brother and father have come to cause harm to her and accordingly her father/A.2 claiming himself to be the owner of the property executed a registered gift deed dated 03.05.2023 in favour of her brother conveying the above referred property. It is alleged that her father and brother created a forged affidavit in her name on 18.02.2023 and utilizing that forged affidavit they got the revenue entries mutated and thereafter the above referred gift deed was executed.
The victim’s brother and father filed Criminal Petition No.8222 of 2024 seeking pre-arrest bail. The disputed gift deed dated 03.05.2023 was allegedly attested by two witnesses who are arraigned as A.6 and A.7. That A.6 and A.7 praying for pre-arrest bail filed Criminal Petition No.7703 of 2024.
Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioners, who argued for both the petitions, argued that this is a civil case given a criminal colour and in such cases Courts have to exercise necessary powers and grant pre-arrest bail. In support of it, the learned counsel cited the following precedent:
Jay Shri v. State of Rajasthan 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 46
Parvataneni Vijaya Kumar v. State of A.P. 2024 SCC OnLine AP 2592
It is further argued that A.2 was the rightful owner of the property and he validly gifted the property to his own son/A.1.
Learned counsel for petitioners arguing on behalf of A.6 and A.7 submits that even if the facts alleged by the prosecution are taken to be true, none of the penal provisions alleged against the accused operate as against these petitioners. These petitioners are mere attestors and they bona fidely believed the transaction and therefore they attested the document. They had no grouse against the victim. They did not intend to cause any loss or harm to her. The fact that could be stated against A.1 and A.2 cannot be attributed to A.6 and A.7. Therefore, they may be released on anticipatory bail.
Sri A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State, argued that the case is not a civil case as alleged by the petitioners. During investigation, it was found that recognizing title and possession Revenue Authorities had issued necessary passbooks in favour of the victim-cum-de facto complainant. It was after manipulation of the revenue records the father of the victim executed the registered gift deed in favour of the brother of the victim. That A.1 and A.2 were able to achieve this by fabricating and forging an affidavit that was never given by the victim. It is in the above referred circumstances the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks dismissal of both the petitions.
Though seemingly the title over immovable property is in dispute, the crux of the case is not about title dispute. The criminal acts alleged in this case pertain to the affidavit dated 18.02.2023. The affidavit by its terms would show that it was executed by the de facto complainant in the presence of a notary. The case of prosecution and the case of the victim is that she did not execute such an affidavit and she never appeared before the alleged advocate-cum-notary who is also one of the accused in the present crime. In the written information lodged by the victim, it is mentioned that the victim was a Government servant and worked in Zilla Parishad and retired from service and that she never had any passport and never visited the USA or any other country and never possessed any Green Card of any other nation. However, the affidavit dated 18.02.2023 shows as if the deponent therein was holding such passport and Green Card. According to prosecution that part of the affidavit thus really indicates that it was never from the hand of the victim-cum de facto complainant. Thus, it is with reference to that disputed affidavit the criminal acts are alleged against the accused. In the light of the contentions raised by the prosecution, it emerges clearly that such serious acts of forgery and fabrication of documents require thorough investigation. In such cases, the claim for pre-arrest bail on part of A.1 and A.2 cannot be acceded to.
Coming to the attestors/A.6 and A.7 F.I.R. by itself does not indicate any criminal acts on their part. Even according to prosecution case, for a gift deed executed by A.2 in favour of A.1 these two accused signed the document as attestors. Even according to prosecution, such gift deed was executed by A.2 in favour of A.1. If that being the case signing as attestors per se do not amount to any criminal acts on their part. The allegations of the prosecution do not show any knowledge for A.6 and A.7 about the affidavit that was subject matter of crime and the role played by A.1 and A.2 in creating such an affidavit. In such circumstances, the plea of A.6 and A.7 that they are implicated in a case where they had no role cannot be discarded. In the opinion of this Court A.6 and A.7 have made out a case for pre-arrest bail.
In the result Criminal Petition No.8222 of 2024 is dismissed. Criminal Petition No.7703 of 2024 is allowed in the following terms:
The petitioners/A.6 and A.7 are directed to join the investigation.
In the event of arrest of the petitioners herein/A.6 and A.7, they shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned investigating officer.
The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the investigating officer on 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.
The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation by a police officer as and when required.
The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
The petitioners shall not indulge in similar acts of crime.
The petitioners must regularly participate in the pre-trial and trial process without fail before the competent Court.