Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4213/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4213 of 2011
=============================================
PURSHOTTAMBHAI
CHINKUMAL CHIMNANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR YOGESH LAKHANI SR. ADV. for
MR SHITAL R PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 04/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with first information report registered at
CR No.I-24 of 2011 with Adalaj Police Station, Gandhinagar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned
senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the complaint
is filed by Shri Umesh Hargovandas Patel, who is in no manner
connected with subject matter of the complaint but happens to be
Ex-President of Taluka Panchayat and with a view to take undue
advantage the applicant is falsely implicated. It is submitted that
the applicant by virtue of a ‘will’ executed by one Karsandas Jetidas
Patel became owner and occupier of bearing Block Nos. 20, 37, 140 and
205 of Mouje Raisan, Taluka & District Gandhingar. The above
‘will’ came to executed on 3.9.1985 before the Executive Magistrate
in presence of two witnesses. The above Karsandas Jetidas Patel
expired on 19.12.1993 and his death was registered at Raisan village
with the office of Talati cum Mantri and accordingly his name is
entered into revenue record and reflected so in the abstract of form
No.7/12 since 1994 onwards. That a person having similar name like
Karsandas who expired on 10.12.1967 according to complainant with
which the applicant has no connection and that Karsandas had only one
land bearing Block No.8 and revenue records reveal the above aspect,
while the applicant is concerned with Block No.20, 37, 140 and 205.
It is submitted that the complaint is filed after a lapse of about 16
to 17 years and a systematic effort is made by said Shri Umesh
Hargovandas Patel at the instance of investigating officer to see
that somehow the applicant is arrested. It is submitted that none of
the relatives whose statement is recorded by the investigating agency
has taken any action of civil nature to challenge the ‘will” alleged
to have been executed on the basis of death certificate of Karsandas
Jetidas Patel. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the
applicant for alleged incident and allegations pertaining to
transactions of sale of the land based on documents the applicant is
sought to be arrested, where no custodial interrogation is necessary.
3. Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State who opposes grant of
bail on the ground that prima facie investigation has revealed that
the applicant has got entered his name in the revenue record on the
basis of a ‘will’ which had root in forged death certificate of
Karsandas. Therefore, according to learned APP custodial
interrogation of the applicant is necessary and therefor powers may
not be exercised in favour of the applicant.
4. Considering
all relevant material at this stage including affidavit filed by the
I.O., it is not in dispute that the alleged incident for which
complaint is filed is of year 1994 about recording entry into revenue
record on the basis of ‘will’ which was registered as early as on
3.9.1985 almost about 25 years ago. There are proceedings undertaken
before revenue authorities and admittedly there was no legal heirs of
deceased Karsandas Jetidas Patel and none of the relatives of the
deceased has taken any action and even alleged ‘will’ is also not
challenged. Besides, name of the applicant appearing in the revenue
record for block Nos. other than Block No. 8 and the applicant is
having permanent residence in the City of Ahmedabad and will be
available for investigation if necessary and by imposing suitable
conditions, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail. This Court
has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in [2011]1 SCC 694, wherein
the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional
Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors.
Reported in [1980]2 SCC 565.
5. Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
6. In
the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the
event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being CR
No.I-24 of 2011 with Adalaj Police Station, Gandhinagar, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount
on following conditions :-
[a] shall
cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for
interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall
remain present at concerned Police Station on 8.4.2011 between 11:00
am to 2:00 pm:
[c] shall
not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so
as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
Police Officer;
[d] shall
at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the
Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change
the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further
orders;
[e]
will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is
holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court
immediately
[f] It
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for
remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned
Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[g] despite
this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to
the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The
applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the
first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent
occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would
be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the
purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police
remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the
accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately
granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a
request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant,
even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such
period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to
other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
7. Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
8. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top