THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7649 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.56 of 2007 of Toopran P.S., Medak District registered for the offence under Section 467 read with Section 109 IPC. 2. The petitioners are accused of fabricating the sale deed said to have been executed by the defacto complainant. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the defacto complainant already disposed of 8 ½ guntas of land under a sale deed dated 11.6.2004 in favour of Mogili Renuka, and therefore, the defacto complainant cannot assert any right over it. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the crime is of the year 2007. A further submission has been made that the petitioners having avoided the investigating agency for nearly two years moved this application for grant of anticipatory bail, and therefore, they do not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. The defacto complainant stated in her report that A-1 impersonating her, executed a sale deed and A-3 to A-6 figured as attestors/identifying witnesses to the said registered sale deed. 7. The petitioners approached the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet for grant of anticipatory bail by filing Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2009. The learned Sessions Judge, after going through the record, came to the conclusion that the petitioners do not deserve for anticipatory bail, and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 11.5.2009. 8. After waiting nearly four months, the petitioners approached this Court by moving an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. It appears the petitioners filed quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C and secured stay of the proceedings for a certain period. The criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is stated to be pending. The petitioners are aware of the registration of the crime in the year 2007 itself. They, having avoided the investigating agency for nearly two years, moved this application seeking anticipatory bail. A specific accusation has been made in the complaint presented by the defacto complainant that A-1 impersonating her, executed the sale deed and A-3 to A-6 figured as attestors/identifying witnesses. In view of the specific accusations levelled against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 24th September 2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7649 of 2009 DATED : 24-09-2009