Sangu Santhosh Reddy And 2 Others v. State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.970 of 2020 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/accused seeking to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.87 of 2019 on the file of Motakondur Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 406 and 468 read with Section 109 IPC.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.11.2019, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he has agricultural land in Ammanabole Village and that he sold some extent of it to one Baltha Upender under sale deed and that in respect of the remaining land, recently he noticed that his son got the same transferred in his name under sale deed on 02.8.2019 by forging the signature of the de facto complainant to which accused Nos.2 and 3 stood as attestors.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police foisted a false case against the petitioners; that the entire allegations levelled against the petitioners are false, baseless and invented by the de facto complainant for the purpose of this case; that the F.I.R. has been registered at the behest of the de facto complainant; and that even before conducting preliminary enquiry, the Police implicated the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and are ready to abide by any

conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of their enlargement on anticipatory bail.

5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.

As seen from the contents of the F.I.R., there are specific allegations against petitioner No.1 that he has got transferred the land to an extent of Acs.7.13 1/5 guntas in his favour by forging the signature of his father ie., de facto complainant by registered document on 02.8.2019 knowing fully well that his father was never present at the time of registration of the document; that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are of the same village knowing fully well that the de facto complainant was not present at the time of registration before the Sub-Registrar stood as witnesses to the said document and got the document registered in favour of petitioner No.1. 7.

Thus, looking into the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 8.

The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. 9.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 18th February, 2020 dr