CRLP/9884/2026 of Sadhanala Hymavathi Vs The State of Telangana, on 16 July 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 in FIR No. 18 of 2024 of Paloncha Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), pursuant to a private complaint referred under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”).

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9884 of 2026

3. Heard Mr. T.S. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that a private complaint was filed alleging that, after the demise of the complainant's father on 18.12.2020, the petitioner/Accused No.1 and other accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with the intention of depriving the complainant of his lawful share in the family properties. It is alleged that the accused forged the complainant's signatures on the plaint, vakalat, and other connected documents in O.S. No.342 of 2021, wherein the complainant was shown as Plaintiff No.2, although he had neither signed nor authorized the institution of the said proceedings. It is further alleged that the complainant's two sisters, who are also legal heirs of the deceased, were deliberately omitted from the said suit. By using the allegedly forged documents as genuine, the accused are stated to have obtained a declaratory decree from the competent Civil Court.

4.2. It is further alleged that, on the strength of the said decree, the petitioner/Accused No.1 got her name mutated in the revenue records in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-15 gts., situated at Gurajala Village and Mandal, Palnadu District, belonging to the complainant's father, and thereafter obtained an ROR-1 Certificate. The complainant has further alleged that the accused are attempting to transfer the remaining properties

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9884 of 2026

left behind by his father and have received LIC proceeds, bank deposits, death benefits, and other amounts by relying upon the said fraudulent decree.

4.3. It is also alleged that, when the complainant questioned the accused regarding the aforesaid acts, they abused and threatened him with dire consequences. Since no action was taken on the complaint submitted before the police authorities, the complainant filed the present private complaint, which was referred by the jurisdictional Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime owing to disputes among the family members concerning the succession and inheritance of the properties left behind by their father. It is contended that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, relating to the entitlement of the legal heirs to the family properties, and has been given a criminal colour by making allegations of forgery and cheating.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that, following the death of their father, a suit was instituted seeking a declaration regarding the legal heirs, which came to be decreed on 03.12.2021, declaring the petitioner/Accused No.1, another accused, and the complainant as the legal heirs of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the allegation that the petitioner forged the complainant's signature or fabricated any document is wholly

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9884 of 2026

baseless. It is further contended that, although the decree was passed in the year 2021, the complaint came to be lodged only in the year 2024 after an unexplained delay of more than two years, which itself indicates that the complaint is an afterthought arising out of family disputes.

5.3. Learned counsel further submits that the entire case rests upon documentary evidence, all of which is already available for the purpose of investigation, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is wholly unnecessary. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a 60-year-old housewife having a permanent place of residence, is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the other accused regarding the commission of the alleged offences. It is submitted that the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention and obtained a declaratory decree by forging the complainant's signatures, and thereafter, on the strength of the said decree, got the revenue records relating to the agricultural land mutated in favour of the petitioner/Accused No.1.

6.2. It is further submitted that the allegations disclose the preparation and use of forged documents as genuine, thereby attracting the offences of

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9884 of 2026

cheating and forgery. It is also alleged that the accused have attempted to deal with, and have derived benefits in respect of, other properties on the strength of the disputed decree. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective investigation. It is contended that, if anticipatory bail is granted, there is every likelihood of the petitioner not cooperating with the investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material placed on record.

8. The allegations against the petitioner principally relate to the alleged forgery of the complainant's signatures on the plaint, vakalatnama, and other documents filed in O.S. No. 342 of 2021, and the subsequent use of the declaratory decree obtained therein for securing mutation of the revenue records and claiming monetary and proprietary benefits arising from the estate of the deceased. If ultimately established, the allegations are undoubtedly serious and warrant a fair and comprehensive investigation, particularly into the genuineness of the disputed signatures, the execution of the documents relied upon in the civil proceedings, the authority under which the suit was instituted, and the circumstances in which the declaratory decree came to be obtained.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9884 of 2026

9. At the same time, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the evidence or record findings on the merits of the allegations, as such an exercise would trench upon the domain of the investigating agency and the trial Court. The enquiry at this stage is confined to whether, having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations, the role attributed to the accused, the necessity for custodial interrogation, the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with the evidence, and the overall interests of justice, the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail deserves to be granted.

10. It is also not in dispute that the controversy arises amongst the legal heirs of the deceased concerning succession to and inheritance of his estate. The record further discloses that the declaratory decree was passed on 03.12.2021, whereas the present criminal proceedings were initiated only in the year 2024. Although delay in setting the criminal law in motion is not, by itself, sufficient to discredit the prosecution case, it nevertheless remains a relevant circumstance while assessing the necessity for custodial interrogation at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail.

11. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that arrest should not be made merely because it is lawful to do so and emphasized that personal liberty occupies a

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9884 of 2026

paramount position in the constitutional framework. The Court further observed that custodial interrogation must be shown to be genuinely necessary in the facts of the particular case. Likewise, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against routine and mechanical arrests merely because the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and reiterated that the investigating agency must justify the necessity for arrest in accordance with law.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid principles, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the dispute arises out of succession and inheritance amongst family members, the lapse of considerable time between the passing of the declaratory decree and the initiation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner's age and status as a 60-year-old housewife, and the fact that the prosecution case substantially rests on documentary evidence capable of independent verification, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the petitioner's non- cooperation can be adequately addressed by directing her to cooperate with the investigating agency and by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure a fair and effective investigation.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9884 of 2026

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Paloncha Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, on or before 30.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail on execution of personal bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Officer. (B) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer. (C) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave India without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Court concerned. (D) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall furnish her complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall she tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9884 of 2026

(F) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (G) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the Court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

14. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 16.07.2026 svl