Pathimidi Janardhan Reddy 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 FIR No.374 of 2026 on the file of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, 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 the petitioner/Accused No.2, along with Accused No.1, forged and fabricated two (02) General Power of Attorneys (GPAs), dated 12.11.2025 and 24.11.2025, purportedly authorising the petitioner/Accused No.2 and the other accused to represent the de facto complainant. The said GPAs were allegedly used before the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.S. Nos.96 and 99 of 2025, wherein proceedings were instituted seeking a declaration and deletion of the subject property from the prohibitory list. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations by the principals/complainats, a crime came to be registered against the petitioner and the other accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner nor the other accused forged the alleged documents and that the complaint has been lodged only with a view to implicate the petitioner, particularly in view of the substantial increase in the value of the disputed property. It is further submitted that the contents of the alleged GPAs do not contain any averment or circumstance that would attract the ingredients of Section 338 of the BNS, and that the said provision has been invoked by the police only to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Learned counsel further submits that, as on the date of the prosecution, no steps had been taken to have the disputed signatures appearing on the GPAs compared with or examined against the signatures of the de facto complainant. Nevertheless, the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that, having regard to the contents of the affidavit accompanying the alleged fabricated GPA and the nature of the declaration sought before the Endowments Tribunal in the pending Original Applications, the ingredients of Section 338 of the BNS are attracted and the said provision has been rightly invoked by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the investigation has not yet commenced and that several witnesses are required to be examined and relevant documentary evidence is yet to be collected. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the effective investigation of the case. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the bail petition.

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

The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.2 is that he, along with the other accused, fabricated the GPAs, purportedly executed by the de facto complainant, and thereafter used the said documents before the Endowments Tribunal in the Original Applications filed seeking a declaration for deletion/removal of the subject property from the property list and for grant of a permanent injunction.

At the stage of consideration of an application for anticipatory bail, however, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record a conclusive finding with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed documents. The determination of whether the GPAs were in fact fabricated, who was responsible for such fabrication, and whether the petitioner knowingly used the same are matters which require investigation and appreciation of evidence in accordance with law. Any definitive finding on those disputed questions at this interlocutory stage would be premature and may also prejudice the investigation or subsequent proceedings.

In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra^{11.2011 1 SCC 694}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the principles governing anticipatory bail, emphasised that the Court must balance the individual's right to personal liberty with the legitimate interests of the prosecution and society. The Court indicated, inter alia, that the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the possibility of repetition of the offence, the likelihood of the accusation having been made with an improper motive, the material available against the accused, and the necessity for custodial interrogation are relevant considerations. At the same time, the Court cautioned that no inflexible or straitjacket formula can be prescribed for deciding applications for anticipatory bail and that the discretion has to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar^{22.2014 8 SCC 273}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the power of arrest is not to be exercised mechanically or merely because the investigating agency considers arrest convenient. The police officer must be satisfied that arrest is necessary for a legally recognised purpose and must record the reasons justifying such arrest in accordance with law. The Court underscored the necessity of asking, in substance, why the arrest is required and what purpose it would serve in the particular investigation.

In the instant case, the principal allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.2 is that he fabricated the GPAs and thereafter caused the same to be placed before the Endowments Tribunal. Thus, the prosecution case substantially rests upon documentary material, the genuineness of which is itself in dispute. The question whether the GPAs were fabricated, whether the signatures appearing thereon are genuine, whether the petitioner participated in their preparation or fabrication, and whether he knowingly used the documents in the proceedings before the Tribunal are matters that require investigation and collection of appropriate evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot record a conclusive finding either accepting or rejecting the prosecution allegation.

At the same time, the mere assertion by the prosecution that custodial interrogation is required cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient justification for arrest. The necessity of custodial interrogation has to be demonstrated with reference to the particular facts and circumstances of the case. In the present matter, the material presently placed before this Court does not disclose any specific circumstance demonstrating that the investigation cannot effectively proceed without taking the petitioner into custody. The disputed documents are already the subject matter of the proceedings before the Tribunal, and the evidentiary issues arising therefrom can be investigated through collection and examination of the relevant documentary material and by examining the persons concerned, subject to the course of investigation.

Further, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to make himself available for interrogation as and when required. Such willingness can appropriately be secured by imposing stringent conditions under Section 482 of the BNSS, including a condition requiring the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the fact that the principal material relied upon by the prosecution consists of disputed documentary evidence, the stage of the investigation, the absence of any demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner's expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail can be extended to the petitioner/Accused No.2, however, subject to appropriate conditions to secure his presence, ensure his cooperation with the investigation.

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.