Partly allowed

Malla Satyanarayana v. Alla Satish

Telangana HC30 Oct 2013CRLP/8247/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an interim order granting anticipatory bail to a respondent accused of impersonating a deceased person to execute a property document. The Court cancelled the bail for the first respondent who was the alleged impersonator but granted a 10-day reprieve pending fresh application. Relief: Anticipatory bail of first respondent cancelled; arrest stayed for 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of anticipatory bail set aside for first respondent; bail bonds cancelled; first respondent not to be arrested for 10 days; other respondents bail maintained.

Malla Satyanarayana Vs Alla Satish — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8247 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in Crime No.293 of 2012 on the file of Vizianagaram I Town Police Station. In the complaint he alleges that the first respondent herein Alla Satish claiming to be the general power of attorney holder under GPA No.15 of 2010 dated 11.05.2010 purported to have been executed by Smt.Kandregula Venkatasatyanarayanamma @ Venkataratnam and other accused sold the residential Flat No.J-3 in third floor in an extent of 1130 square feet in Vijay Ventures which is under construction in plot Nos.9 to 25 of Vizianagaram District and Municipality. The de facto complainant claims that he has entered into an agreement of construction in the said plot under registered document No.1936 of 2010 for consideration of Rs.5,09,000/- and that he paid Rs.7,27,000/under above referred documents. It is further alleged that in fact Smt.Kandregula Venkatasatyanarayanamma @ Venkataratnam died long back and that by impersonating her and forging her thumb impression, a forged GPA was created.

¶5

The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.84 of 2013 seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Sessions Judge by her orders dated 20.02.2013 allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant filed this petition seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondents 1 to 4 herein.

¶6

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.N.P.Anjani Devi is that Smt.Kandregula Venkatasatyanarayanamma @ Venkataratnam died on 04.03.1997

¶7

and the petitioner in support of her contention filed death certificate of Smt.Kandregula Venkatasatyanarayanamma @ Venkataratnam issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. It is further submitted that though Smt.Kandregula Venkatasatya- narayanamma @ Venkataratnam died, the first respondent herein claimed that she executed power of attorney in his favour on 11.05.2010 and got it registered by impersonating the dead person and forged her thumb impression.

¶8

Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the power of attorney was executed on 11.05.2010 and subsequently the sale deeds were executed in favour of the de facto complainant on 23.06.2010, nobody raised any objection within the time and particularly the legal heirs of late Smt.Kandregula Venkatasatyanarayanamma @ Venkataratnam have also not raised any objection. It is also his submission that the lower Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case granted anticipatory bail and no interference is required.

¶9

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable?

¶10

As far as the respondents 2 to 4 are concerned, it appears that there is no need to reconsider the impugned order. As far as the first respondent Alla Satish(A1) is concerned, it appears that the lower Court has not taken into consideration the nature of the offence. The power to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary power, but, the same has to be exercised carefully and cautiously. While considering the anticipatory bail application, the nature of the offence, the role played by the accused and the nature of evidence that is to say whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence and the possibility of tampering the evidence, threatening the witnesses, safety of the witnesses, stage of the investigation are some

¶11

of the important circumstances that should be taken into consideration.

¶12

In this case, the death certificate of Smt.Kandregula Venkatasatyanarayanamma @ Venkataratnam shows that she died on 04.03.1997. Though it may not be desirable to discuss the merits and demerits of the case, but as on the date of execution of General Power of Attorney on 11.05.2010, it appears that Smt.Kandregula Venkatasatyanarayanamma @ Venkataratnam was not alive. The General Power of Attorney has been created as if the dead person came to the Registrar’s office and put her thumb impression. So, when a serious allegation of impersonation of a dead person is made and when a document is executed in favour of an accused who is seeking anticipatory bail, the Court should consider the basic facts before granting anticipatory bail. The investigating Officer has to verify who impersonated the deceased and who identified such person before such Registrar. Therefore, the lower Court should consider whether granting of anticipatory bail would hamper the further investigation.

¶13

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside as far as the first respondent is concerned. The anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent has to be cancelled. Accordingly, the petition is allowed canceling the anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent. The bail bonds if any executed by the first respondent basing on the impugned order stands cancelled.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the first respondent is intending to file fresh application for anticipatory bail or surrender before the learned Sessions Judge and to enable him to approach the Sessions Court, the police may be directed not to arrest the first respondent for 10 days from today. It is for the first respondent either to surrender or to file fresh application for anticipatory bail.

¶15

The learned Sessions Judge or the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order

¶16

and shall dispose of the bail application or any other miscellaneous petitions at the time of trial independently. In the circumstances, the first respondent may not be arrested for 10 days from today.

¶17

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

¶18

___________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. 30^th October 2013, Rns

Malla Satyanarayana v. Alla Satish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malla Satyanarayana v. Alla Satish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Ranga Rao, Vs State Bank of India

Palganti Surendra Reddy Vs State of Ap.

M.Niranjan Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palepu Syamala Kumari Vs Palepu Manoj Kumar

Pasunuri Venkataiah Vs Avadhutha Prameela and Another

D.Rajendra Naidu (A-9) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh