Manukonda Siva Rama Seshi Reddy v. The State Of A.P

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1479 of 2017 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section-438 Cr.P.C. is filed by accused No.1 in Crime No.333 of 2016 of Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections-420, 419, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C. apprehending their arrest in connection with the said Crime. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the de facto complainant has purchased Plot Nos.3 and 4 under registered document No.5184/86 on 26.5.1986 and thereafter, she did not visit the site. However, on 01.11.2016 at about 5 pm., she went to the said Plots and found that somebody removed the wild growth and kept it clean. On her enquiry, she came to know that one Raghavulu-accused No.7 got it cleaned. It is further alleged in the complaint that Accused No.

1 conspired with the other accused to sell the said property based on the defect in demarcation number as it was mentioned as 'D.Nos.78 and 81' instead of '78/B and 81/1B' in the said document. The GPA allegedly executed by the de facto complainant does not bear her photograph and some body's photograph was affixed and the sale deed was executed in pursuance of the authorization allegedly given by the de facto complainant.

it is a clear case of fraud. Using a fake document as a genuine one is an offence punishable under Sections-468 and 471 I.P.C. Thus, the material on record, prima facie, shows that the petitioner and other accused, by creating fake document i.e., GPA, executed the sale deed in favour of others in respect of the property purchased by the de facto complainant. Hence, I find prima facie material against the petitioner to conclude that he committed the offence and consequently, he is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Granting of pre-arrest bail is purely the discretion of the Court and such discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner as he is also one of the persons responsible for creation of fake documents.

However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to issue directions to the Station House Officer, Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District to follow the procedure under Section-41 A I.P.C. and the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar1.

This Court while dealing with an application filed under Section-438 Cr.P.C. cannot issue such directions, however, the Station House Officer, Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District is bound to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar's case 1 2014(2) ALT (Crl.)457(SC)

(supra), otherwise it would amount to contempt. Hence, no separate direction need be given to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).

Subject to the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 27th February, 2017 DR