Sri D.Ammanna Raja

1

IN THE COURT OF VIII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present: Sri D.Ammanna Raja

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of January, 2025.

Original Suit No.321 of 2014

Between

Digumarthi Venkateswarlu, s/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 52 years,Hindu, lands, r/o Manduvavari Palem, Ongole Mandal. … Plaintiff

And

1. Digumarthi Rattamma, w/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 68 years, Hindu, lands , r/o Manduvavari Palem, Ongole Mandal.

2. Ala Rama Devi, w/o Kesava Rao, aged 48 years,Hindu, lands, r/o Valetivari Palem, Ongole Mandal.

3. Mulluri Prasuna, w/o Sreenivasa Rao, aged 45 years, Hindu, r/o Mukthinuthalapadu, Ongole Mandal. …. Defendants

This suit coming on 26.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghava Rao,Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for 2nd defendant, and of Sri M.Ajay babu, Advocate for 3rd defendant, 1st defendant remained exparte, on perusal of material available on record, upon hearing the counsel for both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T // //

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for passing a preliminary decree for partition of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into 4 equal shares and to allot 3 such shares to the plaintiff and one share to 3rd defendant in ‘A’ schedule and one such share each to plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 in ‘B’ schedule property with good and bad qualities and put the plaintiff in possession of his respective shares and for costs.

2

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The plaint schedule and other properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and his father Venkata Subbaiah and they partitioned their properties long back and the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of father of the plaintiff Venkata Subbaiah. Due to family disputed the father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant filed a suit in OS.660/2007 on the file Principal Junior

Civil Judge Court, Ongole for injunction and the plaintiff herein filed a suit in

OS.387/2008 for declaration and both the suits were clubbed and the suit filed

by the father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant dismissed and the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed and no appeals filed and the Judgment became final. The father of the plaintiff died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff(son),1st defendant (wife), defendants 2and 3 (daughters) as his heirs. ‘B’ schedule in OS.387/2008 is the absolute property of Venkata Subbaiah and the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for equal shares. Out of which defendants 1 and 2 settled their 2/4th share to plaintiff in ‘A’ schedule property. Thus the plaintiff is entitled 3/4th share and 3rd defendant entitled for 1/4th share in ‘A ‘ schedule property. In ‘B’ schedule property the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for equal shares.

The plaintiff demanded the defendants for amicable partition of the plaint ’A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, but 3rd defendant not cooperating for partition. The plaintiff came to know that defendants 1 to 3 colluded together to grab the ‘B’ schedule property by creating sham and nominal documents in the name of 3rd defendant. The plaintiff and defendants are in joint and constructive possession of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. Hence the suit.

3 3.(a)The 3rd defendant filed written statement and denying the allegations in the plaint and stated that plaint ‘B’ schedule property was the absolute property of his father Mundluri Venkaiah. He purchased the same in the court auction conducted by official receiver, Ongole, duly executed registered sale deed. Since then his father was in possession and enjoyment of the same.

He further stated that his father Venkaiah executed a registered settlement deed in his favour. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Neither plaintiff nor the other defendants having no manner of right in the ‘B’ schedule property.

The plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and the properties covered under

OS.387/2008 besides some other properties are joint family properties of the

plaintiff and defendants herein. The plaintiff has an evil thought he could have initiated false litigation to grab the line share in the joint family property. The plaintiff played fraud upon the court and obtained fradulent and void decrees, which are not binding on 3rd defendant. 3rd defendant herein no other than his wife co-parcener in the schedule property. So whatever acts and deeds behind her are non-est in the law. He further stated that the settlement deed dated 30.07.2014 is void and the same cannot confer any rights over the plaintiff. He further stated that 3rd defendant reserved her right to file a separate suit for determination of her right under Hindu Succession Act. Unless and until the lawful share of 3rd defendant is determined, the plaintiff or defendants 1 and 2 will not have any absolute rights in any of the properties of estate of Digumarthi

Venkata Subbaiah. Therefore, he urged to dismiss the suit with exemplory costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues were framed for trial:

4

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as sought for ?

2) Whether the settlement deed dated 30.07.2014 istrue and valid document ?

3) Whether the husband of 3 rd defendant is the owner of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property under a registered settlement deed dated 13.08.2007 ?

4) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2 on behalf of plaintiff. On behalf of defendants the husband of 3rd defendant is examined as DW.1 and 3rd party to the suit examined as DW.2 and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.

6.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants.

7.Issue No. 3 :

The husband of 3rd defendant testified as DW.1 categorically started that plaint ‘B’ schedule property was the absolute property of his father Mundluri

Venkaiah. He purchased the same in the court auction conducted by official receiver, Ongole, duly executed registered sale deed Ex.B1. Since then his father was in possession and enjoyment of the same. DW.1 further stated that his father Venkaiah executed a registered settlement deed Ex.B2 in his favour.

Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Neither PW.1 nor the other defendants having no manner of right in the ‘B’ schedule property.

5

8.Per contra, the plaintiff testified as PW.1 stated that the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is the absolute property of his father, Digumarthi Venkata

Subbaiah, who died on 16.6.2014 leaving behind him and defendants and all of them are having equal shares. Though PW.1 stated above during the cross examination he admitted that the plaint ‘B’ schedule property was purchased by

Mundluri Venkaiah from the official receiver, Ongole. He further stated that the said Venkaiah executed registered settlement deed Ex.B1 in favour of DW.1 no other than the husband of 3rd defendant. It was suggested to PW.1 that the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is not joint family property and without any document and even if pass book was issued he got any rights over the schedule property.

9.Though the counsel for plaintiff cross examined DW.1 nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evidence about the purchase of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property by his father and about the execution of Ex.B2 in his favour except making suggestions that DW.1 is no way concerned with the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and it is exclusive property of plaintiff father. However during the cross examination DW.1 expressed his ignorance whether any documentary proof with his father that he is having sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- by the date of auction by the official receiver and further expressed his ignorance whether the father of plaintiff was issued revenue title deed and pattadar pass book for plaint ‘B’ schedule during his life time. I find it is settled preposition of law the revenue record will not decide the title of the parties.

10.It is strange in spite of the above said suggestion, no such revenue records was filed by the plaintiff to substantiate his contention. The 6 evidence of DW.1 is consistent with the evidence of Ex.B1 and B2. I do not find any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of DW.1 when his evidence is convincing and consistent with that of Ex.B1 and B2. Further DW.2 evidence corroborates the evidence of DW.1 about the possession and enjoyment of

DW.1 over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property from the date of Ex.B2. Considering the evidence of DW.1 coupled with the Ex.B2 and in view of admission of PW.1

I find that DW.1 no other than the husband of 3rd defendant is owner of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property under registered sale deed. Hence No.3 decided against the plaintiff.

Issue No.2 :

11.PW.1 deposed that Digumarthi Venkata Subbaiah died intestate leaving behind him, 1st defendant wife, defendants 2 and 3 daughters. He and defendants are the only legal heirs of Digumarthi Venkata Subbaiah and got equal shares. Out of which defendants 1 and 2 settled their 2/4th share in the plaint ‘A’ schedule to him under Ex.A1 with love and affection delivered the same. He accepted the same and acted upon. So he is having 1/4th share in his father’s share, defendants 1 and 2 settled their 2/4th share to him in the schedule property.

12.Per contra, DW.1 stated that 3rd defendant herein no other than his wife coparcener in the schedule property. So whatever acts and deeds behind her are non-est in the law. He further stated that the settlement deed

dated 30.07.2014 is void and the same cannot confer any rights over the

plaintiff. DW.1 further stated that his wife/3rd defendant reserved her right to file a separate suit for determination of her right under Hindu Succession Act.

7 Unless and until the lawful share of 3rd defendant is determined, the plaintiff or defendants 1 and 2 will not have any absolute rights in any of the properties of estate of Digumarthi Venkata Subbaiah.

13.Though the learned counsel for plaintiff cross examined DW.1 nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of DW.1 regarding the rights of 3rd defendant in the property of deceased Digumarthi Venkata Subbaiah. Though the plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 to prove that defendants 1 and 2 settled their 2/4th share in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property under Ex.A1. As rightly stated by the

DW.1 unless and until the lawful share of the 3rd defendant is determined defendants 1 and 2 will not have absolute right in any of the properties of estate of Digumarthi Venkata Subbaiah.

14.It is not the case of the plaintiff that the 3rd defendant is not a co parcener. Even it is not the case of the plaintiff the rights of defendants 1 and 2 determined to execute Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff. Admittedly 3rd defendant is not a party to Ex.A1 settlement deed. In the above circumstances it can be safely concluded that the settlement deed Ex.A1 is not true and valid document. Hence it is not binding on 3rd defendant. Hence Issue No.2 decided against the plaintiff.

Issue No.1 :

15.The counsel for plaintiff and defendants argued canvassing their respective contentions averred in the plaint, as well as in the written statement and basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial. I have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. A perusal of the same the plaintiff testified as PW.1 8 reiterated the averments averred in the plaint on oath that the plaint schedule and other properties are his joint family properties in OS.660/2007 on file of

Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. He filed OS.387/2008 on the file of Principal Senior

Civil Judge, Ongole for declaration of earlier partition which were made.

Wherein his father admitted that ‘A’ schedule belong to him ‘B’ schedule belongs to his father, the suit filed by him was decreed and the suit filed by

Venkata Subbaiah was dismissed. The plaint schedule herein is the part of ‘B’ schedule in the suit filed by him vide OS.387/2008 belongs to Digumarthi

Venkata Subbaiah. PW.1 further stated that defendants 2 and 3 settled their 2/4th share to him in the plaint schedule. Thus he was the absolute owner of 3/4th share of plaint ‘A’ schedule. He and 3rd defendant are in joint and constructive possession over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and he is having 3/4th share and 3rd defendant is having 1/4th share.

16.Per contra DW.1 categorically stated that plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and the properties covered under OS.387/2008 besides some other properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants herein. PW.1 has an evil thought he could have initiated false litigation to grab the lion share in the joint family property. PW.1 played fraud upon the court and obtained fradulent and void decrees which are not binding on 3rd defendant. Therefore, he urged to dismiss the suit with exemplory costs.

17.Though PW.1 stated above during the cross examination he admits that by the date of alleged partition between him and his father defendants 2 and 3 were born. In view of admitted evidence of PW.1 it can be 9 safely concluded that whatever it may be the contention of plaintiff herein it can be safely concluded that alleged partition between the plaintiff and his father during the life time of defendants 2 and 3 is illegal, though it is observed in Ex.A2 in plaint schedule properties are joint family properties. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff herein filed OS.387/2008 of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for declaration of the partition that are alloted to him in the said partition and the same was decreed vide Ex.A2. But it is pertinent to note that defendants 2 and 3 are not the parties to Ex.A2 Judgment.

18. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 father filed OS.241/2009 against him, his wife and son for injunction. Even defendants 2 and 3 are also not parties to the said suit. In view of admitted evidence of PW.1 it can be safely concluded that the Judgment in OS.387/2008 of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and as well as

OS.241/2009 are not binding on the defendants 2 and 3. Further during the

cross examination PW.1 admits that he has not shown in the properties covered in OS.387/2009 in the present suit. It was suggested to PW.1 that since he has not shown the entire properties of their family in the hot patch the suit filed by him is not maintainable. It was further suggested to PW.1 that the suit filed by him for partition is not maintainable for non inclusion of the properties covered under Ex.A2. I find some force in the suggestion put to PW.1 by the counsel for defendants. It is settled proposition of law the suit for partial partition of the joint family properties and for non inclusion of all the joint family properties is not maintainable.

10

19.Though the counsel for plaintiff cross examined DW.1 nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evidence except making suggestions. DW.1 expressed his ignorance regarding the partition of their properties among DW.1 and his father and expressed ignorance about the filing of suit by PW.1 father.

DW.1 further expressed his ignorance about the execution of settlement deed

Ex.A1 in favour of PW.1. Though DW.1 expressed his ignorance about the above said facts I find it is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of DW.1 when the evidence of PW.1 is itself dis-entitle him for the partition of the plaint schedule property. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of DW.1 when his evidence is convincing and consistent with that of the averments averred in the written statement filed by 3rd defendant.

20.I find the evidence of DW.1 and 2 inspire confidence about the undetermined share of defendants 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule properties.

Whereas the evidence of PW.1 do not inspire confidence about his share in the plaint schedule property and the reasons assigned by him for claiming share in the schedule property, in view of my finding in Issue No.1 and 2. Considering the evidence of DW.1 and in view of admissions of PW.1 and in view of foregoing discussion supra, and my finding in Issue No.1 and 2 I find that the plaintiff is not entitled for partition as prayed for. Hence Issue No.1 decided against the plaintiff.

Issue No.4 :

11

21.In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th

day of day of January, 2025.

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :

PW.1 : Digumarthi Venkateswarlu.

For Defendants : DW.1 : Mundluri Srinivasa Rao. DW.2 : Pathapati Chiranjeevi.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 :Xerox copy of settlement deed dated 30.07.2014. Ex.A2 : Certified copy of decree and Judgment in OS.387/2008 and

OS.241/2009 dt.24.8.2011.

For Defendants :

Ex.B1 : Registered sale deed dated 22.07.1985 executed by official receiver, Ongole in favour of father of husband of 3rd defendant by name Venkaiah. Ex.B2 : Original of registered settlement deed dt.13.08.2007 executed by father of DW.1 in favour of DW.1.

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

12

IN THE COURT OF VIII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present: Sri D.Ammanna Raja

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of January, 2025.

Original Suit No.321 of 2014

Between

Digumarthi Venkateswarlu, s/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 52 years,Hindu, lands, r/o Manduvavari Palem, Ongole Mandal. … Plaintiff

And

1. Digumarthi Rattamma, w/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 68 years, Hindu, lands , r/o Manduvavari Palem, Ongole Mandal.

2. Ala Rama Devi, w/o Kesava Rao, aged 48 years,Hindu, lands, r/o Valetivari Palem, Ongole Mandal.

3. Mulluri Prasuna, w/o Sreenivasa Rao, aged 45 years, Hindu, r/o Mukthinuthalapadu, Ongole Mandal. …. Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for passing a preliminary decree for partition of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into 4 equal shares and to allot 3 such shares to the plaintiff and one share to 3rd defendant in ‘A’ schedule and one such share each to plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 in ‘B’ schedule property with good and bad qualities and put the plaintiff in possession of his respective shares and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 01.09.2014Plaint filed on : 07.10.2014.

Cause of action for the suit arose plaintiff and his father partitioned their properties long back and plaint schedule herein fell to the share of father of plaintiff Venkata Subbaiah, due to family disputes the father of plaintiff and 1st defendant filed an injunction suit before Junior civil Judge, Ongole on 14.8.2007.Subsequently plaintiff filed suitfor declaration of earlier partition of himself and his father as shown as A & B schedules on 13.10.2008 in OS.387/2008, the earlier injunction suit is filed by his father also clubbed with the suit OS.241/2008 and both suits disposed on contest and decreed the plaintiff’s suit OS.387/2008 on 24.8.2011 declaring their earlier partition, this plaint schedule and other properties are in possession and enjoyment of Digumarthi Venkata Subbaiah father of plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 and husband of 1st defendant, he died intestate on 16.6.2014 leaving behind the above legal heirs and they are in joint and constructive possession in the property and plaintiff and defendants having equal shares, defendants 1 and 2 settled their 2/4th share in plaint ‘A’ schedule property to plaintiff under registered settlement deed dt.30.7.2014, plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession of plaint-B schedule property, after settlement deed plaintiff requested the defendants for amicable partition, but they did not co-operate.

Value of the suit : As per the certificate of SRO, Ongole the total value of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties is Rs.1,67,87,800/- ; plaintiff’s 3/4th share in ‘A’ schedule 1/4th 13 share in ‘B’ schedule is Rs.50,40,450/- ; 1/4th of the same is Rs.37,80,337/- on which a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under sec.34(2) of APCF & SV Act. The value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.37,80,337/-.

This suit coming on 26.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghava Rao,Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for 2nd defendant, and of Sri M.Ajay babu, Advocate for 3rd defendant, 1st defendant remained exparte, on perusal of material available on record, upon hearing the counsel for both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court Doth order and Decree :

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed ; and

2. that the plaintiff do pay to the 3 rd defendant a sum of Rs.3,53,334/- .

Schedule attached to decree.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 29th day of January, 2025.

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Table of Costs

For Plaintiff : For 3rd Defendant 1.Stamp on Vakalat : ---- 2-00 2.Stamps on plaint : ---- -----

3. Process fee : ---- -----

4. Senior Advocate Fees : ---- 2,64,624-00

5. Junior Advocate Fees: ---- 88,208-00 6.Typing charges : ----- 500-00

----------------------------- --------------------

Total Rs. ----- 3,53,334-00

VIII A.D.J.,

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

14 15

1

APPR000012742025

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

Before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri T.Raja Venkatadri, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Tenth (10th) day of April, 2025.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248,

249, 250, 251, 252, 253 & 254 of 2025.

in (Crime Nos.370, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, & 369 of 2023 of Ongole I-Town Police Station respectively)

Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 2

Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 3

Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.247 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 4

Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.249 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 5

Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.251 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 6

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025:

Between:

1. Gorrepati Ravindra Babu, son of Suri Babu, Hindu, aged 56 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, R/o.Dr.No.58-116/C, Purnadas Street,Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

2. Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.253 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 7

Crl.M.P.No.254 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant -0o0-

The above numbered twelve Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are coming on 08.04.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Galla Srinivas and Sri D.V.Rami Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 5; and of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant / Respondent appearing for the State / Respondent in all the applications, and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// COMMON ORDER //

1.Among the above numbered twelve anticipatory bail applications, eleven bail applications have been filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 only and

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5

respectively, under section 438 of Cr.P.C with a request to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, that they have been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime Nos.370, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, & 369 of 2023 of Ongole I-Town Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC 8

2.Notice furnished to learned Additional Public Prosecutor in all the above twelve applications, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

3.Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to grant the anticipatory bail.

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioners/A3 & A5 in Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025 and the

petitioner/A5 in other eleven Crl.M.Ps., are entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail or otherwise?

6.This Court has perused the crime records, the bail applications and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter and on such evaluation, it is seen that, it is a case of creation of fake family members certificates, death certificates and survey reports by forging the signatures/seals of Government officials and produced such certificates as genuine at the time of registration of documents in respect of valuable properties that occurred in the years 2022- 2023 at Sub-Registrar Office, Ongole, wherein the Joint Sub-Registrar submitted report stating that the accused/Muntha Subrahmanyam, as claimant and other accused as executants submitted fake family members certificates, death certificates, fake survey reports and got registered the lands by using forged documents as genuine After the matter came to light, the defacto complainant verified the documents at concerned authorities and found that they are fake documents and as such lodged a report to take necessary action against the accused who got registration with fabricated and forged documents. Thus the case.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments submitted that petitioner Nos.3 & 5 did not relate to the offence, and the investigation reveals that the case is registered under police proceedings and registered the same for statistical purpose without any offence and the petitioner Nos.3 & 5 names were mentioned as A3 & A5 in mediatornama only 9 and they have been falsely implicated in this case and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A3 & A5.

8.Adverting to the above allegations, when the case of the petitioners is evaluated, it is found that it is a case of fake land deeds racket/scam, whereby the Special Investigating Team (SIT) is probing, wherein it is alleged that the accused created fake family members certificates, death certificates and survey reports by forging the signatures and seals of Government officials and produced the said certificates as genuine at the time of registration of documents in respect of valuable properties and got the lands registered in their names. The accused altogether cheated the innocent people and swindled huge amounts in respect of valuable properties. Their modes operandi was based on forged and fabricated documents. They have obtained documents on valuable properties and diverted the money to various fictitious accounts. Thus, there is prima facie case against the petitioners herein along with the other accused. At this stage, the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the case is registered for statistical purpose by falsely implicating them under police proceedings, that is the reason why only in the mediatornama the names of petitioners herein mentioned, cannot be countenanced at this nascent stage of investigation, for the reason that, the case is under investigation. During the course of arguments, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, Special Investigation Team (SIT)

comprising of police, revenue and registration officers and welcomed the public to complain if they were victims of similar crimes and allocated two

Additional SPs, three DSPs and 17 Constables in the SIT along with officials

from other departments. The SIT has booked almost 54 cases on the accused and his gang, seized about 600 documents, 60 stamps or seals of various

Government Departments and 1200 non-judicial stamp papers. The police is investigating from all angles. The SIT had received complaints from public and were searching for the accused who had been at large since unearthing of forged documents scam. A detailed investigation is going on in the cases 10 booked against the perpetrators who grabbed lands in various parts of the district using forged documents. The victims/landlords whose lands were defrauded are to be examined and their statements are to be recorded. The fake/forged documents said to have been created by the accused are to be collected/seized from the concerned authorities. The revenue records with respect to disputed lands/sites are to be obtained from the concerned revenue officials. It seems that the probe is in progress. The investigating officer has to retrieve certain important documentary evidence, as such investigation is pending. In the above circumstances, if the petitioners/A3 & A5 were enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will gain moral courage and will boost up their illegal acts in tampering the evidence and will hamper the investigation process and flee from justice. In cases of this sort, the arrest and interrogation of petitioners is necessary for the purpose of collection of evidence based on documents. If anticipatory bail is granted, they will remain unavailable to the investigating officer. Poignantly on the only premise that the petitioner/A3 is a woman, her request for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be granted on that only score. Thus, in the circumstances, the petitioners have not made out any extraordinary case for grant of anticipatory bail.Therefore, the petitions have no merit and accordingly dismissed. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253 & 254 of 2025 are DISMISSED.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- T.Raja Venkatadri

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

2. The Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioners.

1

APPR000012742025

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

Before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri T.Raja Venkatadri, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Tenth (10th) day of April, 2025.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248,

249, 250, 251, 252, 253 & 254 of 2025.

in (Crime Nos.370, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, & 369 of 2023 of Ongole I-Town Police Station respectively)

Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 2

Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 3

Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.247 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 4

Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.249 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 5

Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.251 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 6

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025:

Between:

1. Gorrepati Ravindra Babu, son of Suri Babu, Hindu, aged 56 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, R/o.Dr.No.58-116/C, Purnadas Street,Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

2. Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.253 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 7

Crl.M.P.No.254 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant -0o0-

The above numbered twelve Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are coming on 08.04.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Galla Srinivas and Sri D.V.Rami Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 5; and of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant / Respondent appearing for the State / Respondent in all the applications, and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// COMMON ORDER //

1.Among the above numbered twelve anticipatory bail applications, eleven bail applications have been filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 only and

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5

respectively, under section 438 of Cr.P.C with a request to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, that they have been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime Nos.370, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, & 369 of 2023 of Ongole I-Town Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC 8

2.Notice furnished to learned Additional Public Prosecutor in all the above twelve applications, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

3.Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to grant the anticipatory bail.

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioners/A3 & A5 in Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025 and the

petitioner/A5 in other eleven Crl.M.Ps., are entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail or otherwise?

6.This Court has perused the crime records, the bail applications and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter and on such evaluation, it is seen that, it is a case of creation of fake family members certificates, death certificates and survey reports by forging the signatures/seals of Government officials and produced such certificates as genuine at the time of registration of documents in respect of valuable properties that occurred in the years 2022- 2023 at Sub-Registrar Office, Ongole, wherein the Joint Sub-Registrar submitted report stating that the accused/Muntha Subrahmanyam, as claimant and other accused as executants submitted fake family members certificates, death certificates, fake survey reports and got registered the lands by using forged documents as genuine After the matter came to light, the defacto complainant verified the documents at concerned authorities and found that they are fake documents and as such lodged a report to take necessary action against the accused who got registration with fabricated and forged documents. Thus the case.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments submitted that petitioner Nos.3 & 5 did not relate to the offence, and the investigation reveals that the case is registered under police proceedings and registered the same for statistical purpose without any offence and the petitioner Nos.3 & 5 names were mentioned as A3 & A5 in mediatornama only 9 and they have been falsely implicated in this case and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A3 & A5.

8.Adverting to the above allegations, when the case of the petitioners is evaluated, it is found that it is a case of fake land deeds racket/scam, whereby the Special Investigating Team (SIT) is probing, wherein it is alleged that the accused created fake family members certificates, death certificates and survey reports by forging the signatures and seals of Government officials and produced the said certificates as genuine at the time of registration of documents in respect of valuable properties and got the lands registered in their names. The accused altogether cheated the innocent people and swindled huge amounts in respect of valuable properties. Their modes operandi was based on forged and fabricated documents. They have obtained documents on valuable properties and diverted the money to various fictitious accounts. Thus, there is prima facie case against the petitioners herein along with the other accused. At this stage, the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the case is registered for statistical purpose by falsely implicating them under police proceedings, that is the reason why only in the mediatornama the names of petitioners herein mentioned, cannot be countenanced at this nascent stage of investigation, for the reason that, the case is under investigation. During the course of arguments, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, Special Investigation Team (SIT)

comprising of police, revenue and registration officers and welcomed the public to complain if they were victims of similar crimes and allocated two

Additional SPs, three DSPs and 17 Constables in the SIT along with officials

from other departments. The SIT has booked almost 54 cases on the accused and his gang, seized about 600 documents, 60 stamps or seals of various

Government Departments and 1200 non-judicial stamp papers. The police is investigating from all angles. The SIT had received complaints from public and were searching for the accused who had been at large since unearthing of forged documents scam. A detailed investigation is going on in the cases 10 booked against the perpetrators who grabbed lands in various parts of the district using forged documents. The victims/landlords whose lands were defrauded are to be examined and their statements are to be recorded. The fake/forged documents said to have been created by the accused are to be collected/seized from the concerned authorities. The revenue records with respect to disputed lands/sites are to be obtained from the concerned revenue officials. It seems that the probe is in progress. The investigating officer has to retrieve certain important documentary evidence, as such investigation is pending. In the above circumstances, if the petitioners/A3 & A5 were enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will gain moral courage and will boost up their illegal acts in tampering the evidence and will hamper the investigation process and flee from justice. In cases of this sort, the arrest and interrogation of petitioners is necessary for the purpose of collection of evidence based on documents. If anticipatory bail is granted, they will remain unavailable to the investigating officer. Poignantly on the only premise that the petitioner/A3 is a woman, her request for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be granted on that only score. Thus, in the circumstances, the petitioners have not made out any extraordinary case for grant of anticipatory bail.Therefore, the petitions have no merit and accordingly dismissed. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253 & 254 of 2025 are DISMISSED.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- T.Raja Venkatadri

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

2. The Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioners.

1

APPR000012742025

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

Before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri T.Raja Venkatadri, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Tenth (10th) day of April, 2025.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248,

249, 250, 251, 252, 253 & 254 of 2025.

in (Crime Nos.370, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, & 369 of 2023 of Ongole I-Town Police Station respectively)

Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 2

Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 3

Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.247 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 4

Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.249 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 5

Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.251 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 6

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025:

Between:

1. Gorrepati Ravindra Babu, son of Suri Babu, Hindu, aged 56 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, R/o.Dr.No.58-116/C, Purnadas Street,Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

2. Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.253 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 7

Crl.M.P.No.254 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant -0o0-

The above numbered twelve Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are coming on 08.04.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Galla Srinivas and Sri D.V.Rami Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 5; and of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant / Respondent appearing for the State / Respondent in all the applications, and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// COMMON ORDER //

1.Among the above numbered twelve anticipatory bail applications, eleven bail applications have been filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 only and

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5

respectively, under section 438 of Cr.P.C with a request to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, that they have been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime Nos.370, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, & 369 of 2023 of Ongole I-Town Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC 8

2.Notice furnished to learned Additional Public Prosecutor in all the above twelve applications, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

3.Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to grant the anticipatory bail.

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioners/A3 & A5 in Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025 and the

petitioner/A5 in other eleven Crl.M.Ps., are entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail or otherwise?

6.This Court has perused the crime records, the bail applications and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter and on such evaluation, it is seen that, it is a case of creation of fake family members certificates, death certificates and survey reports by forging the signatures/seals of Government officials and produced such certificates as genuine at the time of registration of documents in respect of valuable properties that occurred in the years 2022- 2023 at Sub-Registrar Office, Ongole, wherein the Joint Sub-Registrar submitted report stating that the accused/Muntha Subrahmanyam, as claimant and other accused as executants submitted fake family members certificates, death certificates, fake survey reports and got registered the lands by using forged documents as genuine After the matter came to light, the defacto complainant verified the documents at concerned authorities and found that they are fake documents and as such lodged a report to take necessary action against the accused who got registration with fabricated and forged documents. Thus the case.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments submitted that petitioner Nos.3 & 5 did not relate to the offence, and the investigation reveals that the case is registered under police proceedings and registered the same for statistical purpose without any offence and the petitioner Nos.3 & 5 names were mentioned as A3 & A5 in mediatornama only 9 and they have been falsely implicated in this case and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A3 & A5.

8.Adverting to the above allegations, when the case of the petitioners is evaluated, it is found that it is a case of fake land deeds racket/scam, whereby the Special Investigating Team (SIT) is probing, wherein it is alleged that the accused created fake family members certificates, death certificates and survey reports by forging the signatures and seals of Government officials and produced the said certificates as genuine at the time of registration of documents in respect of valuable properties and got the lands registered in their names. The accused altogether cheated the innocent people and swindled huge amounts in respect of valuable properties. Their modes operandi was based on forged and fabricated documents. They have obtained documents on valuable properties and diverted the money to various fictitious accounts. Thus, there is prima facie case against the petitioners herein along with the other accused. At this stage, the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the case is registered for statistical purpose by falsely implicating them under police proceedings, that is the reason why only in the mediatornama the names of petitioners herein mentioned, cannot be countenanced at this nascent stage of investigation, for the reason that, the case is under investigation. During the course of arguments, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, Special Investigation Team (SIT)

comprising of police, revenue and registration officers and welcomed the public to complain if they were victims of similar crimes and allocated two

Additional SPs, three DSPs and 17 Constables in the SIT along with officials

from other departments. The SIT has booked almost 54 cases on the accused and his gang, seized about 600 documents, 60 stamps or seals of various

Government Departments and 1200 non-judicial stamp papers. The police is investigating from all angles. The SIT had received complaints from public and were searching for the accused who had been at large since unearthing of forged documents scam. A detailed investigation is going on in the cases 10 booked against the perpetrators who grabbed lands in various parts of the district using forged documents. The victims/landlords whose lands were defrauded are to be examined and their statements are to be recorded. The fake/forged documents said to have been created by the accused are to be collected/seized from the concerned authorities. The revenue records with respect to disputed lands/sites are to be obtained from the concerned revenue officials. It seems that the probe is in progress. The investigating officer has to retrieve certain important documentary evidence, as such investigation is pending. In the above circumstances, if the petitioners/A3 & A5 were enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will gain moral courage and will boost up their illegal acts in tampering the evidence and will hamper the investigation process and flee from justice. In cases of this sort, the arrest and interrogation of petitioners is necessary for the purpose of collection of evidence based on documents. If anticipatory bail is granted, they will remain unavailable to the investigating officer. Poignantly on the only premise that the petitioner/A3 is a woman, her request for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be granted on that only score. Thus, in the circumstances, the petitioners have not made out any extraordinary case for grant of anticipatory bail.Therefore, the petitions have no merit and accordingly dismissed. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253 & 254 of 2025 are DISMISSED.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- T.Raja Venkatadri

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

2. The Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioners.

1

APPR000012742025

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

Before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri T.Raja Venkatadri, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Tenth (10th) day of April, 2025.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248,

249, 250, 251, 252, 253 & 254 of 2025.

in (Crime Nos.370, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, & 369 of 2023 of Ongole I-Town Police Station respectively)

Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 2

Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 3

Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.247 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 4

Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.249 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 5

Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.251 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 6

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025:

Between:

1. Gorrepati Ravindra Babu, son of Suri Babu, Hindu, aged 56 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, R/o.Dr.No.58-116/C, Purnadas Street,Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

2. Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.253 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 7

Crl.M.P.No.254 of 2025:

Between:

Gorrepati Lakshmi Nageswaramma, wife of Ravindra Babu, aged 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Housewife, R/o.Dr.No. 58-116/C, Purnadas Street, Santhapeta, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. Presently residing at Plot No.303, Krishna Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant -0o0-

The above numbered twelve Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are coming on 08.04.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Galla Srinivas and Sri D.V.Rami Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 5; and of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant / Respondent appearing for the State / Respondent in all the applications, and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// COMMON ORDER //

1.Among the above numbered twelve anticipatory bail applications, eleven bail applications have been filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 only and

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5

respectively, under section 438 of Cr.P.C with a request to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, that they have been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime Nos.370, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, & 369 of 2023 of Ongole I-Town Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC 8

2.Notice furnished to learned Additional Public Prosecutor in all the above twelve applications, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

3.Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to grant the anticipatory bail.

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioners/A3 & A5 in Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025 and the

petitioner/A5 in other eleven Crl.M.Ps., are entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail or otherwise?

6.This Court has perused the crime records, the bail applications and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter and on such evaluation, it is seen that, it is a case of creation of fake family members certificates, death certificates and survey reports by forging the signatures/seals of Government officials and produced such certificates as genuine at the time of registration of documents in respect of valuable properties that occurred in the years 2022- 2023 at Sub-Registrar Office, Ongole, wherein the Joint Sub-Registrar submitted report stating that the accused/Muntha Subrahmanyam, as claimant and other accused as executants submitted fake family members certificates, death certificates, fake survey reports and got registered the lands by using forged documents as genuine After the matter came to light, the defacto complainant verified the documents at concerned authorities and found that they are fake documents and as such lodged a report to take necessary action against the accused who got registration with fabricated and forged documents. Thus the case.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments submitted that petitioner Nos.3 & 5 did not relate to the offence, and the investigation reveals that the case is registered under police proceedings and registered the same for statistical purpose without any offence and the petitioner Nos.3 & 5 names were mentioned as A3 & A5 in mediatornama only 9 and they have been falsely implicated in this case and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A3 & A5.

8.Adverting to the above allegations, when the case of the petitioners is evaluated, it is found that it is a case of fake land deeds racket/scam, whereby the Special Investigating Team (SIT) is probing, wherein it is alleged that the accused created fake family members certificates, death certificates and survey reports by forging the signatures and seals of Government officials and produced the said certificates as genuine at the time of registration of documents in respect of valuable properties and got the lands registered in their names. The accused altogether cheated the innocent people and swindled huge amounts in respect of valuable properties. Their modes operandi was based on forged and fabricated documents. They have obtained documents on valuable properties and diverted the money to various fictitious accounts. Thus, there is prima facie case against the petitioners herein along with the other accused. At this stage, the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the case is registered for statistical purpose by falsely implicating them under police proceedings, that is the reason why only in the mediatornama the names of petitioners herein mentioned, cannot be countenanced at this nascent stage of investigation, for the reason that, the case is under investigation. During the course of arguments, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, Special Investigation Team (SIT)

comprising of police, revenue and registration officers and welcomed the public to complain if they were victims of similar crimes and allocated two

Additional SPs, three DSPs and 17 Constables in the SIT along with officials

from other departments. The SIT has booked almost 54 cases on the accused and his gang, seized about 600 documents, 60 stamps or seals of various

Government Departments and 1200 non-judicial stamp papers. The police is investigating from all angles. The SIT had received complaints from public and were searching for the accused who had been at large since unearthing of forged documents scam. A detailed investigation is going on in the cases 10 booked against the perpetrators who grabbed lands in various parts of the district using forged documents. The victims/landlords whose lands were defrauded are to be examined and their statements are to be recorded. The fake/forged documents said to have been created by the accused are to be collected/seized from the concerned authorities. The revenue records with respect to disputed lands/sites are to be obtained from the concerned revenue officials. It seems that the probe is in progress. The investigating officer has to retrieve certain important documentary evidence, as such investigation is pending. In the above circumstances, if the petitioners/A3 & A5 were enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will gain moral courage and will boost up their illegal acts in tampering the evidence and will hamper the investigation process and flee from justice. In cases of this sort, the arrest and interrogation of petitioners is necessary for the purpose of collection of evidence based on documents. If anticipatory bail is granted, they will remain unavailable to the investigating officer. Poignantly on the only premise that the petitioner/A3 is a woman, her request for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be granted on that only score. Thus, in the circumstances, the petitioners have not made out any extraordinary case for grant of anticipatory bail.Therefore, the petitions have no merit and accordingly dismissed. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253 & 254 of 2025 are DISMISSED.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- T.Raja Venkatadri

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

2. The Station House Officer, Ongole I-Town Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioners.