Panchareddy Shravan @ Shravan Kumar vs The State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petitions 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 the accused No.1 in FIR No.13 of 2023 on the file of Nizamabad III Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 466, 467, 468, 475, 506 read with 120b of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).

Heard Mr.N.Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are friends of the complainant’s son, approached the complainant in January 2020 and represented that they could arrange for the grant of a land patta from the Office of the Municipal Commissioner. They further represented that they could secure the requisite permission and facilitate the sanction of a bank loan for the said purpose. According to their representation, the total expenses involved in the process would be Rs.4,40,000/-. In order to induce the complainant to believe their representations, the petitioner and the other accused allegedly showed her a patta document purportedly issued by the competent authority.

Believing the representations made by the accused, the complainant and her son paid a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- to them. A few days thereafter, a patta document was also handed over to the complainant. However, it was subsequently discovered that the said documents were forged and fabricated. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, has no criminal antecedents, and has been falsely implicated by the police without properly verifying the material available on record. He further submits that the transactions in question relate to the year 2020, whereas the present crime was registered only in 2023, after an inordinate and unexplained delay. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident and is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Accused No. 2, who is similarly situated and is facing the same allegations as the petitioner/Accused No. 1, had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail. This Court, vide order dated 19.12.2025, taking into consideration the fact that the entire investigation is based on documentary evidence and that custodial interrogation is not necessary, granted anticipatory bail to Accused No. 2. It is therefore contended that, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and that the investigation is still pending. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly admits that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are facing similar allegations and that a coordinate bench of this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to Accused No. 2.

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

The specific allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, collected a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- from the complainant on the representation that they would secure a Government House Site Patta for a person belonging to the weaker section and, thereafter, handed over certain patta certificates which were allegedly fake and fabricated. It is further alleged that, after the complainant questioned the genuineness of the said documents and demanded return of the amount, the petitioner and the other accused agreed to repay the amount along with interest and, in furtherance of the said assurance, partially repaid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-.

The allegations, therefore, relate principally to the collection of money and the alleged use of forged or fabricated patta certificates. At the stage of consideration of an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings on the ultimate merits of the prosecution case. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of BNSS, is intended to safeguard the liberty of a person apprehending arrest, subject to the Court being satisfied, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that such protection is warranted. The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is an important judicial remedy for protecting personal liberty and that appropriate conditions may be imposed to ensure that the accused cooperates with the investigation.

At the same time, the claim of parity with a co-accused cannot be treated as an automatic or mechanical ground for grant of bail. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230, has held that, while considering parity, the Court must examine the role attributed to the accused and determine whether the accused claiming parity is, in fact, similarly situated with the co-accused who has already been granted bail. The principle of parity is thus a relevant consideration, but it does not dispense with the Court's independent application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the individual accused.

In the present case, the co-accused, who is stated to be standing on the same footing as the petitioner and against whom similar allegations have been made, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The prosecution has also fairly acknowledged that the allegations against the petitioner and the said co-accused are similar. There is no material placed before the Court, at this stage, to demonstrate any distinguishing circumstance warranting a different view in the case of the petitioner. Further, the alleged transaction, the payment of money, and the disputed patta certificates constitute matters which are substantially documentary in nature. In these circumstances, and having regard to the principle that similarly situated accused persons should ordinarily receive similar treatment unless there are distinguishing facts or circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of parity.

Accordingly, considering the nature of the allegations, the material presently available, the fact that the co-accused standing on substantially the same footing has already been granted anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered view that extending similar relief to the petitioner, on the ground of parity, would be appropriate and justified.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to 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.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.