Sunam Raju, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.1 1 8 6 0 of 2 0 1 7 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner-A2, for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.646 of 2017 on the file of R.G.I. Airport Police Station, Shamshabad, Rangareddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 & 471 I.P.C.

2 .

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner-A2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

3 .

Learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 would submit that the petitioner-A2 is the innocent person and falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner-A2 has no connection with K.Narender Reddy, who is said to be the relative of de facto complainant. The petitioner-A2 has neither received the money nor was present at any point of time. The allegation that the petitioner-A2 along with K.Narender Reddy received Rs.3,50,000/ -, Rs.3,25,000/ - and Rs.50,000/ - on three different occasions is absolutely false. No prudent person will pay huge money without there being a proper and valid Patta certificate as well as the registration of Sale Deed. No person will pay Rs.50,000/ - without seeing the document of sanction of loan and ultimately prayed to allow the application. 4 .

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-A2.

5 .

The material on record reveals that one K.Narender Reddy and petitioner-A2 approached the de facto complainant and her husband. The petitioner-A2 was introduced as an employee in M.R.O. office. The Petitioner-A2 and K.Narender Reddy promised the de facto complainant to give Patta of Government land in Survey No.29/ P, situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District for consideration of Rs.6,70,000/ -. Initially an amount of Rs.3,50,000/ - was paid by the de facto complainant to the petitioner-A2 and K.Narender Reddy on 10.08.2014.

Thereafter, petitioner-A2 and K.Narender Reddy handed over two patta certificates, i.e., (i) vide reference No.B/ 691/ 2014, dated 11.08.2014, in respect of Plot No.126 admeasuring 125 square yards in Survey No.29/ P in the name of the de facto complainant; and, (ii) vide reference No.B/ 691/ 2014, dated 11.08.2014, in respect of Plot No.127 admeasuring 125 square yards in Survey No.29/ P, in the name of the husband of de facto complainant. Thereafter, petitioner-A2 and K.Narender Reddy collected an amount of Rs.3,25,000/ - from the de facto complainant and her husband. After several demands made by the de facto complainant and her husband, petitioner-A2 and K.Narender Reddy handed over two registered Sale Deeds bearing document No.1497/ 2015, dated 02.04.2015 and document No. 1560/ 2015, dated 31.03.

2015, to the de facto complainant and her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner-A2 and K.Narender Reddy took an amount of Rs.50,000/ - from the de-facto complainant and her husband stating that the loan was sanctioned for construction of house in the above said plots.

was allotted by the Government in favour of the de-facto complainant, as detailed in the Patta certificates and registered document. It is also alleged that the petitioner-A2 and another person threatened the de facto complainant to file a false case. 6 .

As seen from the entire material on record, there are specific and grave allegations of receiving huge money from the de facto complainant and her husband by the petitioner-A2 and K.Narender Reddy, the petitioner-A2 claimed to be an employee of M.R.O. Office. When huge amount was paid by the de-facto complainant in the year 2014, the petitioner-A2 and K.Narender Reddy delivered false, fabricated and bogus Sale Deeds to the de-facto complainant, as alleged in the F.I.R. dated 13.10.2017. The matter requires thorough investigation. It cannot be said that the petitioner-A2 is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. In view of the above, there are no justifiable grounds to allow the present petition.

7 .

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 11.12.2017 MVA