Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/12292/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12292 of 2008
=========================================================
MAKANAJI
JETHABHAI PARMAR & 6 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
HL
PATEL ADVOCATES for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 7.
Mr. S.P.Hasurkar, A.P.P. for
Respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 14/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned A.P.P. Mr.S.P.Hasurkar waives service of rule on behalf of
the respondent-State.
2. Heard
learned Counsel for the applicants-accused and learned
A.P.P.Mr.S.P.Hasurkar for the respondent-State.
3. This
application for anticipatory bail has been preferred by the
applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with CR No.I 78 of
2008 which has been registered on 12-5-2008 with Kanabha Police
Station, Ahmedabad Rural for the alleged commission of offences under
Sections 468, 471,420, 409, 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
It
is alleged in the complaint that accused Makanaji Jethabhai Parmar
(present applicant no.1) with the help of concerned Talati-cum-Mantri
at the relevant time, had shown the deceased Motibhai Shankerbhai as
having no other heirs except the present applicant no.1-accused with
an intent to become the owner of the lands in question. So far as the
applicants-accused nos.2 to 7 are concerned, it is alleged that they
have signed in the above referred fabricated pedigree. On the basis
of the said fabircated pedigree the revenue entries were got made in
the name of the present applicant no.1-accused. Thus, though in fact,
the deceased Motibhai Shankerbhai had on his death left behind him
legal heirs, the present applicant accused had managed to see that it
is shown in the relevant records that Motibhai Shankerbhad died
without leaving behind him any heirs except the present applicant
no.1-accused, and thereby created a false revenue entry.
It
has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the applicants
that after a long lapse of 20 years the complaint is filed and before
the RTS cases are pending between the parties. He also argued that
anticipatory bail application filed by the accused- Talati-cum-Mantri
Shri B.L.Jhala is allowed. He also argued that regular bail is also
granted in favour of the other accused persons, and hence this
application deserves to be allowed.
Learned
APP Mr.S.P.Hasurkar has opposed this anticipatory bail application
and stated that prima facie the accused are involved in the
commission of the crime in question.
4. This
Court has gone through the complaint,the papers of investigation as
also considered the submissions urged. Prima face, it transpires that
the applicant no.1-accused is involved in the commission of the crime
in question as he is the only beneficiary, while so far as the
applicants nos.2 to 7 are concerned they have only signed on the
fabricated pedigree , presumably, on the request made by the
applicant no.1 and Talati-cum-Mantri. Considering all these aspects,
the involvement of the applicant no.1-accused having been made out
the application qua the applicant no.1-accused is hereby rejected
and Rule qua the applicant no.1-accused is discharged while the
application so far as the applicants nos. 2o 7 are concerned, is
allowed.
5. In
the event of arrest of the applicants nos.2 to 7 in connection with
Crime Register no.I 78 of 2008 registered with Kanabha Police
Station, they shall be released on bail in respect of offences
alleged against them in this application on each of them executing a
bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the
like amount, by the concerned Police Officer and on condition that
they shall:
(a) remain
present before the trial Court regularly as and when directed on the
dates fixed;
(b) remain
present at the concerned Police Station on 1st of Every
English calendar month between 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.
(c) make
themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer, whenever
and wherever required;
(d) not
directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
(e) not
to obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play
mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the
police.
(f) at
the time of execution of bond, furnish the residential address to the
Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change
their residence till the final disposal of the case or till further
orders.
(g) not
leave India without the permission of the Cour and if having
passport, shall deposit the same before the trial Court within a
week.
6. It
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for
remand, if he considers it proper and just, and the concerned
Magistrate would decide it on merits.
7. This
order will hold good if the applicants nos.2 to 7 are arrested any
time within 90 days from today. This order for release on bail will
remain operative only for a period of ten days from the date of his
arrest. Thereafter, it will be open to the applicants to make a fresh
application for being enlarged on bail in usual course which when it
comes before the competent Court, will be disposed of in accordance
with law, having regard to all the attending circumstances and the
materials available at the relevant time uninfluenced by the fact
that anticipatory bail was granted.
8. Rule
is made absolute qua applicants nos.2 to 7 only. Direct service is
permitted.
(M.D.Shah,J.)
lee.
Top