Puram Yadireddy & Anr. 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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 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 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Since the petitioners are accused in the same crime and seek analogous relief, both Criminal Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Heard Mr.Rapolu Abhinav, learned counsel representing Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner/Accused No.1, along with Accused No.2, forged and fabricated two (02) General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) dated 12.11.2025 and 24.11.2025, purportedly authorizing the petitioner/Accused No.1 and the other accused to represent the de facto complainant. Accused No.3 is stated to be a witness to the said GPAs. The documents were allegedly used before the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.S.Nos.96 and 99 of 2025, wherein proceedings were instituted seeking declaration and deletion of the subject property from the prohibitory list. Based on the allegations of the principals/complainants, a crime was registered against the petitioner and the other accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the petitioner nor the other accused forged the alleged documents and that the complaint was lodged only to implicate the petitioner, particularly in view of the substantial increase in the value of the disputed property. It is contended that the alleged GPAs contain no averment or circumstance attracting the ingredients of Section 338 of the BNS and that the provision was invoked by the police only to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of Section 35(3) of the BNSS. It is further submitted that Accused No.2, against whom the primary allegations are levelled, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief on the principle of parity. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the relief already granted to the principal accused, the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, contending 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 provision has been rightly invoked. It is further submitted that the investigation has not yet commenced, 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 effective investigation and, accordingly, 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 is that Accused No.1, along with Accused No.2, fabricated the GPAs purportedly executed by the de facto complainant, while Accused No.3 allegedly signed the documents as a witness. The said documents were thereafter used before the Endowments Tribunal in the Original Applications seeking a declaration for deletion/removal of the subject property from the property list and for grant of permanent injunction.

At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record a conclusive finding regarding the genuineness of the disputed documents. Whether the GPAs were fabricated, who was responsible for such fabrication, and whether the petitioners knowingly used the same are matters requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence. Any finding on such disputed questions at this interlocutory stage would be premature and may prejudice the investigation or subsequent proceedings.

In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra^{11.2011 1 SCC 694}, the (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, while considering anticipatory bail, the Court must balance personal liberty with the legitimate interests of the prosecution and society, having regard, inter alia, to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of absconding or repeating the offence, the likelihood of an improper motive, the material available against the accused, and the necessity for custodial interrogation. It was also held that no inflexible formula can be prescribed and that the discretion must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar^{22.2014 8 SCC 273}, the the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that arrest cannot be made mechanically or merely for the convenience of investigation, and that the necessity and purpose of arrest must be demonstrable and supported by reasons in accordance with law.

In the present case, the prosecution allegation substantially rests upon the disputed GPAs and their alleged use before the Endowments Tribunal. Whether the documents were fabricated, whether the signatures thereon are genuine, whether the petitioners participated in their preparation or fabrication, and whether they knowingly used the same are matters to be determined upon investigation and collection of appropriate evidence. At this stage, therefore, this Court cannot record any conclusive finding either accepting or rejecting the prosecution case.

At the same time, the mere assertion that custodial interrogation is necessary cannot, by itself, justify arrest. Such necessity must be demonstrated with reference to the facts of the particular case. In the present matter, the material placed before this Court does not disclose any specific circumstance showing that the investigation cannot effectively proceed without custodial interrogation. The disputed documents are already the subject matter of proceedings before the Tribunal, and the relevant aspects can be investigated by collecting and examining the documentary material and examining the persons concerned.

The petitioners have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to make themselves available for interrogation as and when required. Such cooperation can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions under Section 482 of the BNSS, including a condition requiring them to cooperate with the investigation. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the disputed documentary material, the stage of investigation, the absence of any demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation, and the petitioners’ willingness to cooperate, this Court is of the considered view that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail can be extended to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, subject to appropriate conditions securing their presence and cooperation with the investigation.

Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners beyond the allegations referred to above, and the fact that similarly placed co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief on the principle of parity.

For the aforesaid reasons, these Criminal Petitions are 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.