Paidipamula Lakshmi Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PAIDIPAMULA LAKSHMI KUMARI,, W/O RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O D.NO.28-89, TIRUPATIRAO NAGAR, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, YANAMALAKUDURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.404, 4TH FLOOR, HEMALATHA TOWERS, VELAGAPUDI RAMA KOTAIAH STREET, TADIGADAPADONKA ROAD, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶10

PAIDIPAMULA SANDEEP,, S/O RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O D.NO.28-89, TIRUPATIRAO NAGAR, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, YANAMALAKUDURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.404, 4TH FLOOR, HEMALATHA TOWERS, VELAGAPUDI RAMA KOTAIAH STREET, TADIGADAPADONKA ROAD, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, THROUGH SHO, KANKIPADU POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA CITY.

¶14

YELLA JAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, R/O 5-22, PEDAVATLAPUDI VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

2

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioners A1,A2 on regular bail in Crime No. 210 / 2025 on the file of the Kankipadu P.S., Vijayawada, in the interest of justice

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶19

1.D TARAKA PRASAD

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶21

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

2.J.V.PHANIDUTH

¶23

3

¶24

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1665/2026

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 210/2025 on the file of the Kankipadu P.S., Vijayawada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 34 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Deliver of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

¶27

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainant purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed in the year 2011 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is alleged that the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, in conspiracy with other accused, forged documents, impersonated the complainant by using a morphed Aadhaar card, created a false Special Power of Attorney, and executed fraudulent sale deeds with an intention to grab the property and derive wrongful gain.

¶28

Heard Sri D.Taraka Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J.V.Phaniduth, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶29

4

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is essentially a civil dispute which has been given a colour of a criminal case. Learned counsel further submits that it is for the Court to decide whether the document in question was forged and whether the petitioners herein had created the said document without having any title over the property. It is further submitted that the present case has been registered based on the report of the Sub-Registrar. He would further submit that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they are innocent of the allegations made against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and therefore prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 herein created a forged document, i.e., the Aadhaar Card of the respondent No.2. In fact, the original Aadhaar number ends with the last four digits as “7904”, but they have created an Aadhaar Card with the last four digits as “5810”. They also secured the photograph of the respondent No.2 from her sale deed. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that Accused No.1 created a Special Power of Attorney as if it was executed by the respondent No.2 in her favour on 02.06.2025, but the date of execution was shown as 05.06.2025. He would submit that by virtue of the alleged power under the said Special G.P.A., Accused No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of her son, i.e., Accused No.2, on 21.07.2025, and the said sale deed was also prepared on 02.06.2025. Learned counsel

¶32

5

¶33

would submit that Accused No.2, in turn, executed a G.P.A. in favour of third parties who later approached the respondent No.2 claiming to be the owners of the property, and only then did the respondent No.2 come to know about the alleged fraud. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would finally submit that the petitioners are not entitled to regular bail since the investigation is not yet completed and the matter is at a crucial stage.

¶34

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 23.01.2026. She would further submit that the investigation is at a crucial stage and that 10 witnesses have already been examined. She would also submit that there are criminal antecedents against the petitioners. The documentary as well as expert evidence is yet to be secured. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that serious allegations of forgery and fraudulent transfer of property are made against the petitioners, including creation of a forged Aadhaar Card, execution of a Special Power of Attorney, and a registered sale deed in favour of Accused No.2, who further executed a G.P.A. in favour of third parties. The investigation is still at a crucial stage, with documentary and expert evidence yet to be secured. In view of the gravity of the allegations and

¶36

the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioners at this stage.

¶37

6

¶38

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶39

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

¶40

this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶41

¶42