Thadikonda Surya Venkata Sambamurthy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.100 of 2026 of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS.,’).

Sri B.V.S.Chalapathi Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an innocent agriculturist having no role in the alleged forgery of partnership documents and was inducted into the firm only subsequently on the representations of Accused No.1, who is his close relative. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation that the Petitioner forged any document, fabricated any signature, received any sale consideration, or derived any monetary benefit from the transaction. The entire case rests on documentary evidence already in the custody of the investigating agency and, therefore, custodial interrogation is unnecessary. Learned Counsel further submits that the dispute predominantly arises out of partnership and property transactions, that there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR, and that Accused No.1, against whom the principal allegations are levelled, has already been granted bail. Having no criminal antecedents, possessing permanent roots in society, and being willing to cooperate with the investigation, it is urged to allow the Petition.

Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law and urged to dismiss the Petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

As seen from the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2 and was taken into judicial custody on 07.10.2026, having remained incarcerated for the last five days. It is further noteworthy that the name of Respondent No.2 has not been pressed. The material placed before this Court reflects that the Petitioner’s mother is completely bedridden and dependent upon him for her day-to-day care and necessities, the Petitioner being an unmarried individual and the sole caregiver. It is also evident that Accused No.1 has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The substantial part of the investigation, insofar as the alleged role attributed to the present Petitioner is concerned, appears to have been completed. In such circumstances, the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the Petitioner influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or obstructing the course of investigation does not appear to be well-founded. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Bhimalapuram, West Godavari District, possessing a fixed place of abode, thereby minimizing any likelihood of abscondence. Moreover, the gravamen of the dispute primarily emanates from the allegations exchanged between Accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant, the latter alleging that Accused No.1 forged certain signatures and fabricated documents.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is inclined to enlarge Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail with some stringent conditions.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: