Telangana High Court
Vankudothu Lakshman Naik vs Vankudothu Nunavath Ansuri Anasuya on 3 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7439 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 439(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.')
to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos.1 to 3
vide orders dated 15.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2024
in Crime No.52 of 2020 by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial
of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-II Additional Sessions
Judge, Warangal (for short 'the trial Court').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused persons
are deceived the de-facto complainant by creating false and
fabricated documents in respect of the Survey No.674 to
extent of Ac.1-21 guntas, Survey No.675 to extent of Ac.1-06
guntas, Survey No.676/A to extent Ac.0-03 guntas, total Ac.2-
30 guntas situated at Vishwanadapuram village. Hence, a
case was registered vide Crime No.52 of 2020 before the
Geesugonda Police, Warangal, for the offences punishable
under Sections 468, 420 read with 120(b) of the IPC.
SKS,J
3. By the impugned order, the petition, filed by accused
Nos.1 to 3, was allowed granting anticipatory bail to accused
Nos.1 to 3.
4. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.4-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
accused Nos.1 to 3 created fabricated the documents only to
grab the schedule land by deceiving the petitioner/de-facto
complainant. He further submitted that accused Nos.1 to 3
are harassing the de-facto complainant, who is aged about 70
years. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal
Petition by cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to accused
Nos.1 to 3.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 sought to sustain the
impugned passed by the trial Court stating that accused
Nos.1 to 3 never harassed the de-facto complainant and the
trial Court has rightly granted the anticipatory bail to accused
SKS,J
Nos. 1 to 3. He further submitted that no such incident
occurred in the instance case for cancelling the bail granted to
accused Nos.1 to 3 and in this regard, he placed reliance on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Dolat Ram and other v.
State of Haryana 1. He also submitted that accused Nos.1 to
3 are following the conditions imposed by the trial Court while
granting bail. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the
criminal petition.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.4-State submitted that investigation is completed and
charge sheet was filed vide C.C. No. 717 of 2024.
8. This Court, considering submissions made by both the
parties and reviewing the material available on record, it is
apparent that accused Nos.1 to 3 are strictly following the
conditions by the trial Court vide orders dated 15.02.2024.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the trial Court and the Criminal
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Further, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are directed to cooperate with
(1995) 1 SCC 349
SKS,J
trial proceedings. However, if accused Nos.1 to 3 violated the
conditions imposed by the trial Court, the de-facto
complainant is at liberty to approach the concerned Police for
addressing their grievance.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 03.03.2025
gms
