Yanna Lakshmi Devi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

T.Mallikarjuna Rao, J

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner/A2 herein to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.49 of 2022 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 420, 409, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’).

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The District Registrar, Narasaraopet lodged a English typed report stating that he received a complaint from one M.Radha Krishna alleging that the land situated in Sy.No.419/1C of Uppalapadu Village, Nuzendla Mandal pertaining to the jurisdiction of SRO, Vinukonda and Narasaraopet measuring an extent of Ac.53.00 cents is a Vagu Poramboke and prohibited from registration, but it was registered by several individuals under various documents to different individuals including the petitioner/A2 herein and requested to take action against the Sub-Registrar and document writers who were involved in the said transactions and further stated in the report that the aforementioned land is not shown in the prohibited properties list prior to 28.02.2011 as notified by the Tahsildar, Nuzendla Mandal and there is no consistency in the information furnished by the revenue authorities and it is also stated that 21 documents were registered insofar as the aforementioned land is concerned. Basing on the above stated allegations, the respondent, upon receiving the report on 08.07.2022 at 19.00 hours and as per the instructions of ADGP, CID, A.P., Mangalagiri vide Memo in C.No.4877/C-22/CID/2022, dated 08.07.2022, registered the present crime as FIR No.49 of 2022.

Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that petitioner/A2 has been falsely implicated in the case and the petitioner is no way concerned with the commission of the offence. He further submits that the petitioner is a woman and aged about 62 years and she is apprehending arrest in the hands of the police, as such prays to enlarge the petitioner/A2 on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned Special Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor confirms non-filing of charge sheet by the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is at crucial stage.

In view of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Special Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor, I have carefully gone through the material on record.

As seen from the record, the contentions of the petitioner/A2 are that the petitioner is a women and aged about 62 years and she purchased the properties in the years 2002 and 2003 as shown in Sl.Nos.1 to 11 in the complaint given by the District Registrar. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even in the complaint, the Registrar specifically stated that as ascertained from the SR, Vinukonda, the prohibited properties lists from the years 2000 to 2007 furnished by various Authorities under Section 22-A of Registration Act are not traced out and stated to have not been available in the office, and remaining lists received in the year 2007, 2011, 2016, 2019 relating to Sy.No.419 of Uppalapadu Village are available. Even in the complaint, it is clearly stated that the documents noted against Sl.No.1 to 15 were registered prior to the year 2007 and the prohibited properties lists are not available and are not traced out in the SR, Vinukonda. It is not the case of the prosecution that the prohibited lists of properties were communicated to the concerned Sub-Registrar. If that be so, the Registrar could not have registered the properties in favour of the petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, in collusion with her vendor, obtained the said documents. The prosecution has to place prima-facie material before the Court that even by the time of purchase of properties by the petitioner covered under Sl.Nos.1 to 11, the prohibited lists of properties are communicated to the Sub-Registrar and despite the said fact, the registrations are held in favour of the petitioner. Unless the prohibited lists of properties were communicated to the Sub-Registrar, no ordinary prudent men can have knowledge about the properties of prohibited lists. Noting on record would suggest that the said sale transactions held in favour of the petitioner are collusive and fictitious. In the said facts of the case, after 22 years of transaction, the petitioner cannot be arrested. As the said transactions are covered under the registered transactions, there is no possibility of tampering the record now. In the absence of prima-facie material on record to show that the prohibited lists of properties are communicated to the Sub-Registrar, the transactions of the petitioner prima-facie cannot be said to be fictitious to defeat the interest of the State. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that A5 to A8, A14 to A17 in this crime were already released on regular bail granted by the District & Sessions Judge.

After considering the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner is a woman and aged about 62 years and said to have purchased the properties about 22 years ago and there is nothing on record to state that she is not a bonafide purchaser of the properties. The petitioner has permanent abode at Ongole, Prakasam District, as such there is no possibility of their fleeing away from justice.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2 with the following conditions.

i. The petitioner/A2 is directed to surrender before the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District within two weeks from the date of receipt of orders and the petitioner/A2 shall be released on her furnishing personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

ii. The petitioner/A2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer and shall co-operate with the investigating officer. The petitioner/A2 shall appear before the investigating officer as and when her presence is required.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.