1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNSS‟) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.27 of 2026 of Nathavaram Police Station, Anakapalle District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 335, 329(3), 79, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNS‟).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2.   Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the de-facto complainant‟s mother died on 27.05.2021, and while the complainant was pursuing legal heir certification, the accused took advantage of the situation to grab her property. It is alleged that the accused fabricated a false Will using a backdated stamp paper and forged signatures in favour of another. The District Registrar confirmed that the stamp paper was not genuine and appeared to be fabricated. The accused are further alleged to have created a fake death certificate and issued legal notices to support their claim. It is also alleged that they abused, threatened, and intimidated the complainant with the help of rowdy elements. Further, the accused allegedly conspired to murder the complainant by hiring a person for Rs.10,00,000/-, and the complainant claims to possess audio evidence of the said conspiracy.

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

3.   Smt T.V. Sridevi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the present case is false and has been foisted due to civil disputes over property. The alleged Will executed by late Allu Nookalamma in favour of the 2nd petitioner is genuine, and the issue of its validity is already pending before the competent civil court. The petitioners assert that the 2nd petitioner lawfully obtained the Family Member Certificate after due enquiry and subsequently alienated the property through registered sale deeds. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant has been making repeated false claims based on fabricated documents, including a doubtful death certificate and adoption deed. The petitioners state that civil suits and injunction orders are already in force, and the complainant is attempting to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. The allegations of fabrication, intimidation, and conspiracy to murder are baseless, unsupported by evidence, and inherently improbable. It is also contended that the police, acting with bias, failed to conduct a proper preliminary enquiry and falsely implicated the petitioners. The petitioners submit that they are law-abiding persons with fixed residence, and their arrest is unnecessary as they are willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners.

ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

4.   Per contra, Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law and it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.

5.   Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

6.   In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

               “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:

7.   As seen from the record, the de-facto complainant claims to be the adopted daughter of one A. Nookalamma. The 1st petitioner is not the beneficiary under the alleged Will; the beneficiary is the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner is only a lessee in respect of the subject land belonging to one Rajesh. O.S. No.116 of 2023 was instituted by the 2nd petitioner against the de-facto complainant seeking declaration and injunction based on the said Will. O.S. No.21 of 2024 was filed by the purchaser, Rajesh, against the de-facto complainant. Further, O.S. No.26 of 2023 was filed by the de-facto complainant against the 2nd petitioner.

8.   Having regard to the nature of the transactions and civil suits pending in between the Petitioners and the de-facto complainant and third party, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9.

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

               i.        In the event of arrest, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.

               ii.       The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required.

               iii.       The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

               iv.      The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

               v.       The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

               vi.      The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.