CRLP/2663/2026 of Pasupuleti Kiranmayi, Vs The State of A.P. on 4 May 2026

ORDER :

The present Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/Accused Nos.1 and 2 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, vide order dated 20.02.2026 in CRL.M.P.138 of 2026 in Crime No.259 of 2023 on the file of Vedayapalem Police Station, Nellore District.

2. Heard Sri Pechathy Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein purchased the subject property on 13.08.1990 from the legal heirs of the original owner. Learned counsel would further submit that the original owner of the subject property died in the year 1954 itself. Accused No.2 purchased the very same property under a fake sale deed dated 19.09.1992, as if it was executed by the original owner who had died in the year 1954. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record a photocopy of the death certificate of the original owner to show that the original owner died on 23.09.1954. Learned counsel further submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are husband and wife. Accused No.2 has also filed a civil suit for injunction against the petitioners herein, which is pending for trial in O.S. No.721 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that custodial interrogation is very much required in this matter, but ignoring the same, the learned Judge has granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have been cooperating with the investigation. The documents have been sent for expert opinion. The thumb impression of the original owner did not tally with the thumb impression on the registered sale deed in favour of Accused No.2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the investigation is completed and the charge sheet has also been filed in this matter, and the Court may pass appropriate orders.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that respondent No.2 herein has purchased the property and is a bona fide purchaser for valuable sale consideration without knowledge of any defect in title. It is further submitted that immediately upon coming to know about the issue, respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted a report to the police through the Spandana grievance mechanism, and both parties appeared before the police, where their statements were also recorded. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residents of Bangalore and that respondent No.2/Accused No.2 could not travel, and her husband has been attending on her behalf. The parents of respondent No.2, who are residents of Nellore, had negotiated the sale transaction; however, they are now no more. It is further submitted that the land was mutated in favour of respondent No.2 immediately after the purchase in the year 1993, and electricity bills and tax receipts are also standing in her name. They have also constructed 10 small houses in the year 1993 itself over an extent of 550 sq. yards. It is further submitted that they have filed a civil suit for injunction, and there are no grounds for cancellation of the bail granted in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Considering the submissions made and a fair perusal of the material placed on record, it is not the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 and 3, after grant of anticipatory bail, have violated the conditions imposed by the Court nor is it their contention that due to subsequent conduct of the accused they do not deserve anticipatory bail. The specific case of the petitioners is that the accused purchased the property in the year 1992 under a registered sale deed as if it was executed by the original owner and that custodial interrogation is required and therefore anticipatory bail ought not to have been granted, which was ignored by the learned Judge. However, in the light of the fact that investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding custodial interrogation holds no water.

7. The fact remains that the petitioners purchased the property under a registered sale deed in the year 1990 and the very same property was purchased by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the year 1992 by way of a registered sale deed. A civil suit is pending before the Civil Court. The expert opinion shows that the thumb impression does not tally with that of the original owner. The rival contentions regarding the truth or genuineness of the sale transaction cannot be decided at this juncture. This Court does not find any warranting circumstances for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Judge has exercised discretion after consideration of the material on record. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________

DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 05.05.2026. UPS

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2663 OF 2026 Dt: 05.05.2026

UPS