A criminal petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding cheque-bouncing and forgery charges was dismissed. The court held that cancellation of sale deeds without exceptional circumstances does not warrant bail, noting no change in circumstances since dismissal of an earlier application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16465 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner/A.1 in Crime No.369 of 2015 of Langerhouse Police Station, Hyderabad, who allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’).
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he admittedly executed sale deeds bearing Nos.9554 and 9555 of 2013 dated 13.02.2014 and the same were cancelled by executing registered cancellation deeds bearing Nos.5402 and 5405 dated 15.09.2014 and 15.09.2015 respectively, and refunded the amount to the vendees. Therefore, as on 15.09.2014 the purchasers, viz., G.Sudarshan Reddy, G.Janardhan Reddy, G.Goverdhan Reddy, G.Madhusudhan Reddy, T.Chandrabhanu Reddy, V.Sudharshan Reddy and Sunil Reddy are in possession in the entire extent of Ac.7.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.447 of Raichur Village, Raichur City, Karnataka State. Thus, he committed no offence in view of cancellation of the registered sale deeds.
The learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana would contend that the petitioner himself admitted about execution of the sale deeds and their cancellation, though he had no title to the property, which amounts to admission of commission of the offence and there exists no ground to grant prearrest bail. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
CRLP_16465_2016 MSM, J
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the above crime and in case he is arrested, he will be put to serious loss.
The petition is filed for grant of pre arrest bail, which is purely discretionary in nature and grant of pre-arrest bail is not a matter of course, it is a matter of exception. Admittedly, the petitioner executed sale deeds and their cancellation referred above. The copies of the said documents are filed before this Court, but those documents do not disclose any reason for cancellation of registered sale deeds. Mere cancellation of registered sale deeds is not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail. Grant of pre-arrest bail is not a matter of course, but it is a matter of exception. Unless some exceptional circumstances are shown, a pre-arrest bail can not be granted as a matter of routine.
In STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MOHD. SAJID
HUSAIN1 , the Apex Court laid down the following guidelines for grant of anticipatory bail:
1 AIR 2008 SC 155
CRLP_16465_2016 MSM, J
Similarly, in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS2 , the Apex Court held
as follows:
The following factors and parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
2 2011 Crl.L.J. 3905
CRLP_16465_2016 MSM, J
In the present facts of the case, the petitioner admitted about the execution of registered sale deeds and their cancellation, though he is not properly authorized by the persons, who allegedly executed power of attorney in his favour. The material on record, prima - facie, discloses direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C.
Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above, it is difficult to grant pre-arrest bail, at this stage, since there are no changed circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail application by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl.P.No.2444 of 2016 dated 03.09.2014 and hence, the criminal petition deserves to be dismissed
In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
Date:17.01.2017 BV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be granted where the petitioner cancelled executed sale deeds but admitted lack of title?
Whether mere cancellation of registered sale deeds constitutes an exceptional circumstance warranting pre-arrest bail?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MOHD. SAJID HUSAINReferred¶12
1 AIR 2008 SC 155 · Who else cites this
SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSReferred¶21
2 2011 Crl.L.J. 3905
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.1 (Petitioner)
State of Telangana
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
