Gujarat High Court

Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 28 January, 2022

Bench: A.Y. Kogje

     R/CR.MA/13068/2021                            ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13068 of 2021

================================================================
                          RAMANBHAI BHOLIDAS PATEL
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR IH SYED, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR ANIQ A KADRI (11256)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN, ASSISTED BY MS MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                               Date : 28/01/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in

connection with FIR being CR No.11191020201493 of 2020

registered with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad for offence

under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the

applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable

conditions. It is submitted that the Applicant is 65 years old and is

a senior citizen suffering from several ailments. It is a case of

documentary evidence. All relevant documents are subject matter

of various proceedings civil and criminal. All the documents

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

including revenue proceedings, civil suits, etc. are seized by the

Police under a Panchnama dated 07.11.2020. Therefore, there is no

question of tampering with these documents. Investigation is

concluded and the charge sheet is filed.

2.1 It is submitted that the present FIR came to be

registered on 17.10.2020 for an alleged offence of 1987 with a false

explanation of delay of 33 years (though the complainant was

aware of revenue and civil proceedings, the same was suppressed)

under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120b and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860. That the offences alleged in the FIR

are all triable by a Magistrate.

2.2 It is submitted that the complainant, her sisters and her

mother (heirs of the original land owner) executed an irrevocable

power of attorney in favour of present Applicant and one

Natwarbhai jointly and severally for the lands at Survey No. 465/1

& 2. In the said PoA, it is stated that a Banakhat in respect of the

same transaction is already executed. Thereafter, a sale deed was

executed using the said PoA on 18.09.1991 for the lands in favour

of the Mandali vide Sale Deed no. 23751 for which due

consideration was paid by cheque to the original land owners. This

sale was mutated in the revenue records and the entry was duly

certified. No investigation has been conducted to verify the cheque

payments made herein.

       R/CR.MA/13068/2021                            ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022



2.3              It is submitted that Tenancy Case was initiated against

the Mandali for alleged violation of Section 63G of the Act wherein

the complainant, her sister and her mother appeared through their

advocate and filed their signed Vakalatnama along with their reply.

She was having knowledge of sale of their land through Power of

Attorney since 1995.

2.4 It is submitted that the partition of the Mandalis,

conversion to Co-operative Housing Society and other changes

have taken place after following due procedure of law and in

accordance with the orders passed by the appropriate and

competent authorities. All such orders have attained finality.

2.5 It is submitted that in 2006, order passed under

Tenancy Case was challenged by the complainant and other heirs

through their power of attorney holder one Shankarlal Barot before

the Dy. Collector, Ahmedabad after a delay of 5 years wherein the

order passed under Tenancy Case was set aside and matter was

remanded back to the Mamlatdar. The said Remand Tenancy Case

was decided against the Mandali and the possession of the lands

was handed over to the State vide order dated 28.10.2020. The said

order is challenged before this Hon'ble Court vide SCA No. 15413

of 2020 which is pending final hearing.

2.6 It is the case of the applicant-accused that the

complainant and her children namely Niketan and Alka executed a

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

power of attorney dated 28.02.2006 along with sisters of the

complainant and their heirs in favour of one Shankarlal Barot.

Since, Vikas, other son was residing in the United States, he

executed a separate power of attorney dated 18.04.2006 which was

duly notarized in U.S.A. That, it is through these power of attorneys

that Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2008 was instituted by the heirs of

the complainant and other heirs(Plaintiffs) after 17 years, whereas

the complainant and her sisters were made defendants even though

all were represented by the same power of attorney. The Plaintiffs

have prayed for cancellation of Sale Deed and have also challenged

the P.O.A. dated 16.09.1991. Thereafter, on 14.08.2015, the

erstwhile power of attorney Shankarlal Barot was served with a

notice by the advocate of the children of the complainant for

cancellation of their power given to him dated 28.02.2006 and

18.04.2006. Thereafter, a new Vakalatnama was filed in the said

suit on behalf of these heirs. It is submitted that the complainant

and her sisters chose not to appear in the said suit even though

they were duly served with the notice and were aware of the

proceedings. The civil suit was dismissed for default in 2019.

These proceedings have attained finality and none of the orders

have been challenged.

2.7 It is submitted that the sister of the complainant

namely Kamlaben had preferred a complaint on the same set of

facts in 2019 to the office of the Hon'ble C.M. of Gujarat. The said

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

complaint was closed and Kamlaben was asked to redress her

grievance through proper legal remedy before the court. Even

then, present FIR was registered on 04.11.2020 on the same set of

facts and circumstances but with Kamlaben's sister as the

complainant.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that there is an

overwhelming prima facie case of forgery of power of attorney. It

is submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender with regard to

forging documents in the nature of power of attorney, one in the

present case and other in the matter of FIR proceedings initiated

pursuant to FIR registered at Sola High Court Police Station for

which bail application is filed vide Criminal Misc. Application No.

13093 of 2021.

3.1 It is submitted that in both the cases of forging powers

of attorney, the forged documents are used for the purpose of

grabbing valuable parcels of agricultural land and that too of a

complainant who is an aged lady (senior citizen).

3.2 It is submitted that non-cooperation of applicant in the

process of investigation as forged power of attorney in both the

cases is either destroyed or hidden in order to save the accused

persons from being subjected to scientific evidence in the nature of

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

handwriting expert's opinion, etc. It is submitted that the offence

is of serious nature, severe and quantum of punishment is also

required to be looked into.

3.3 The conduct and behavior of applicant with regard to

abusing court proceedings and also interfering with the

administration of justice is also required to be seen. The conduct

and behavior of the applicant as alleged and found against the

applicant and co-accused, i.e. the real brother of the applicant,

Dashrathbhai Bholidas Patel who is an accused in the FIR

proceeding registered at Vastrapur Police Station vide I-C.R.No.

1399 of 2020 pertaining to intimidation and threatening of the first

informant to settle the above referred FIR proceedings and also

creating documents in their favour against first informant under

coercion and compelling the first informant and her mother to sign

such documents etc. as discussed in paragraph 16 of the order

dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Learned Coordinate Bench in

Criminal Misc. Application No. 17332 of 2021.

3.4 It is submitted that both, the first informant and one

other alleged donor named Kamlaben have clearly stated that they

have not put their signature/thumb impression on the forged power

of attorney allegedly executed on 16.09.1991.

3.5 It is submitted that before first informant lodged her

FIR, one another alleged donor of forged power of attorney named

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

Kamlaben Vishnubhai Barot gave information about forgery

committed by applicant and other accused through her application

in December 2019 to the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister State of

Gujarat which was responded to by City Mamlatdar, Ghatlodiya

through communication dated 25.06.2020 for redressing her

grievance through exhausting appropriate legal remedy before

court.

3.6 It is submitted that the conduct of the applicant is

required to be considered. The applicant had produced a copy of

the forged power of attorney in the present proceedings as well as

in the other proceedings initiated by applicant and other accused

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with an

endorsement of T.C i.e., True Copy, meaning thereby that the

applicant is having the original power of attorney but he is not co-

operating with the investigation by either permitting a recovery of

the power of attorney from him, nor is he voluntarily producing the

same. This establishes that applicant had either destroyed this

document or had hidden the same.

3.7 It is submitted that during the course of investigation

and while applicant and his real brother (co-accused) were on

police remand, their Advocate submitted a copy of the forged

power of attorney as well as copies of other documents including

various orders passed in different tenancy case proceedings and

the civil suit. Copy of forged power of attorney submitted by

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

accused persons, which is on record of present proceedings at Page

47 to 53 (marked as Annexure B) is the same copy as submitted by

accused persons and as contained in charge-sheet. During the

course of investigation, further statement of first informant is also

recorded which provides information about death of first

informant's husband in the year 2012 as well as the fact that the

first informant since her marriage in 1955, was residing at Mumbai

since 1955 and had stayed at the United States of America for a

pretty long period with her daughter. First informant's two

daughters named Smitaben and Alkaben and the son of the first

informant, Vikas are permanently residing at USA. It is also

narrated in her further statement that first informant's sample

handwriting and signatures were collected by investigator.

3.8 It is submitted that during investigation, search was

conducted at the office premises of applicant and his real brother

situated at New York Tower, Thaltej during which different

documents in the nature of various orders passed in tenancy

proceedings, matter of civil suit etc. are collected by investigator

through Panchnama dated 07.11.2020 (see page 222 to 231). Item

at serial no.15 and 16 two different documents in the nature of

original agreement to sale and original power of attorney other

than forged power of attorney were found during search. These two

original documents relate to complaint land but there is no date

recorded on it and it is different than forged power of attorney.

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

These two original documents along with sample handwriting and

signatures of first informant have been subjected to scientific

examination but opinion of handwriting expert is yet to come. In

the first information report and in further statement of first

informant, it is clearly stated that her signature is forged.

3.9 It is submitted that one another donor of forged power

of attorney i.e., real sister of the first informant named Kamlaben

Vishnuprasad Barot who initially submitted complaint/ application

in December, 2019 to the Office of Hon'ble Chief Minister, State of

Gujarat referring about applicant and others who committed a land

scam (complaint land). This application is a part of charge-sheet

and on a bare perusal of this application, it is evident that

Kamlaben had put her thumb impression and as against it, so far as

the forged power of attorney is concerned, it shows that Kamlaben

has put her signature. It is found that Kamlaben died in January,

2020.

3.10 It is submitted that first informant's father, being a

tenant of the complaint land had purchased the complaint land as

deemed purchaser under the provisions of Section 32G of the

Tenancy Act and therefore, the complaint land devolved upon the

father of first informant with restrictions under Section 43 of

Tenancy Act. This aspect is revealed in order of Gujarat Revenue

Tribunal placed at page 134 which also reveals that restrictions

imposed on complaint land falling under Section 43 of Tenancy Act

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

were very much in force up to 12.11.1991 and therefore, the

execution of forged power of attorney dated 16.09.1991 and

execution of registered sale deed dated 18.09.1991 are before

12.11.1991 and hence, are invalid documents as they are in breach

and violation of various provisions of Tenancy Act more

particularly, Section 43 of the Act.

3.11 The applicant has relied upon one another document

dated 28.02.2006 which is in the nature of general power of

attorney executed before Notary Advocate (see page 162 to 169) at

mark Annexure P. It is submitted that this document is not

submitted before the investigator till date by any of the accused

including the applicant. But this document for the first time has

been placed in the present proceedings as well as also in other

proceedings initiated by this applicant as well as other accused as

they have filed quashing petition for quashment of first informant's

FIR proceedings. This document i.e. general power of attorney

dated 28.02.2006 refers to forged power of attorney. Donors of this

document dated 28.02.2006 are first informant and her relatives,

and the donee is one Shri Shankarlal Chimanlal Barot. This

document is dated 28.02.2006, and amounts to one more attempt of

applicant and other accused to deceive. One of the signatory i.e.

real sister of first informant, happens to be Kamlaben who had put

her signature as against it said lady Kamlaben while filing

complaint/ application alleging fraudulent acts of applicant and

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

other accused in December, 2019 had put her thumb impression on

it as also one of the signatory of this document named Alkaben

Bhailalbhai who happens to be the daughter of first informant and

as stated by first informant that her daughter named Alkaben stays

at USA since 2006. It is further submitted that this document i.e.

general power of attorney dated 28.02.2006 is used for the purpose

of filing Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2008 by the legal heirs of first

informant Chanchalben, first informant's sister Kamlaben and

another sister Hiraben against first informant Chanchalben and

Kamlaben and other including applicant. Therefore, a suit is filed

by children against their mothers through same donor Mr. Barot. It

is pertinent to state here that one of the plaintiff of suit application

whose name is deleted, named Smitaben Bhailalbhai Barot as such

is the permanent resident of USA since decades. One of the

signatory to the document dated 28.02.2006 i.e. general power of

attorney is Alkaben Bhailalbhai who is shown to be resident of

Ahmedabad in the document but as such is the permanent resident

of USA since decades is not shown as suit plaintiff and one more

suit plaintiff named Vikaskumar Bhailalbhai Barot though not a

signatory to document dated 28.02.2006 is shown to be the suit

plaintiff. On the basis of this document dated 28.02.2006, above-

referred suit was filed on 07.01.2008 and it got dismissed under

Order IX Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code on 21.10.2019. Order of

dismissal of suit states about death of donor i.e. Shankarlal

Chimanlal Barot on 07.09.2019. On the basis of this document

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

dated 28.02.2006 as well as filing and dismissal of suit, in the facts

and circumstances is nothing but a camouflage and also an attempt

to interfere with the administration of justice as well as amounting

to an act of abusing the process of Court and an act of forgery of

power of attorney for the purpose of fraudulently grabbing valuable

complaint land an act construed to be very serious in nature

entailing punishment up to life imprisonment, etc.

3.12 During the pendency of above said suit proceedings,

original defendant no.3 Saranga Cooperative Housing Society

Limited is executing sale deed in favour of defendant no.5 i.e.

applicant Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel and other co-accused persons,

more particularly on 30.06.2016 through two different sale deeds

for two parcels of complaint land for a total consideration of around

15.50 lakhs consideration, shown to have been paid through

cheque drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. without mentioning

the branch or the location of the bank. In absence of sufficient

particulars of the bank and evident non-cooperation of applicant

and other accused, the investigator is unable to find out as to

whether the payment of consideration shown in the sale deed has

ever been given or paid. These two sale deeds are a part of charge-

sheet.

3.13 Similarly, other eleven parcels of land held by

defendant no.3 society named Saranga Cooperative Housing

Society Limited is sold to defendant no.5 Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

i.e. applicant and other co-accused persons through sale deed

dated 31.03.2011 for a consideration of around 3.49 Crores

showing therein consideration being paid by cheque drawn on

Bank of Maharashtra without referring to its branch or place.

3.14 It is submitted that in light of above, this Court may

oblige respondent by rejecting applicant's bail application.

4. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant

submitted that there is no evidence of forgery which is brought on

record except a statement made by the complainant after a delay of

33 years suppressing the revenue and civil proceedings, that too by

giving a false explanation for the said delay. It comes on record

from the statement of Niketan son of complainant dated 04.01.2021

that at times Kamlaben, his masi used to attest a document with a

thumb impression and that at times she used to even place her

signature upon certain documents. (pg no. 35 )

4.1 That the sons of the complainant Niketan and Vikas and

other heirs instituted this Special Civil Suit through their power of

attorney Shankar Barot wherein the Applicant and the complainant

along with her sisters were made Defendants. That, the

complainant and her sisters chose to not appear in these

proceedings. Thereafter, the heirs of the complainant i.e. Niketan,

Vikas, Smita and Alka cancelled the powers dated 28.02.2006 and

18.04.2006 given to Shankarlal and appeared themselves through

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

their advocate in this civil suit in 2015. It is submitted that

thereafter the sons of the complainant (Plaintiffs) chose to not

appear and the said civil suit came to be dismissed.

4.2 It is submitted that the two pillars of entire case of the

prosecution are inferences and presumptions. That, the said

criminal proceedings have been set into motion after a false

explanation of delay of 33 years. The sister of the complainant had

also attempted to initiate criminal proceedings for the very same

allegations in the year 2019 vide a complaint against the Applicant

which was subsequently closed owing to in an inordinate delay and

no offence being made out. That the FIR and the charge sheet have

conveniently suppressed all revenue and civil proceedings which

have all been decided against the complainant. The complainant is

nothing but a frustrated civil litigant resorting to initiate the

criminal machinery to attempt to obtain what she couldn't in civil

proceedings.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and

having perused documents on record, it appears that upon

investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the offence is The

complainant owns land in the outskirts of the Thaltej village at

block/ survey No.-465/1 admeasuring 4452 sq. meter and at block/

survey No.465/2, 6070 sq. meter. Upon demise of Ponchabhai

Virambhai, the father of the complainant on 16/10/1986, names of

the complainant, her mother Umiyaben Pochabhai and her two

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

sisters (1) Hiraben Ponchabhai (2) Kamlaben Ponchabhai i.e names

of the total four heirs were added in this property of agriculture

land vide entry No.6197 on 17/03/1986. Thence forth, these four

persons became the owners and occupiers of this land. The accused

persons hatched conspiracy in collusion with each other in order to

accomplish the same, they put fake signature/ thumb impression of

the complainant, her sisters and her mother and got fabricated

Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney

and Agreement to Sell prepared and put fake signature/thumb

impression of the complainant, her sisters and her mother. Out of

these documents, the forged Irrevocable General Power of Attorney

which is in favor of the accused Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel and

deceased Natwarbhai Bholidas Patel was produced as the original

at the office of the Registrar, Head Quarter Sub-Registrar,

Ahmedabad-01. On that basis, the accused no.1 mentioned at

column no.1, as the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant,

her mother and sisters, and executed registered sale deed

No.23751/91 dated 18/09/1991 of the aforesaid lands in favor of

Shri Sarswati Smriti Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited,

which is a society registered under Sr.No. Khe-3318 dated

27/07/1990. He appointed his brother Natwarbhai Bholidas Patel

and others as the Chief Promoters and appointed his relatives as

the managers. Thereafter, as a part of the conspiracy he got the

aforesaid Agricultural Co-operative Society divided in to Part-01 to

05 Reg.No. Khe-3848 to Khe-3852 on the basis of the order dated

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

04/02/1995. The lands of the complainant was included in the Part-

01 and along with some other agriculture land survey numbers of

this Sarswati Smriti Community Farming Co-operative Society were

converted into the Housing Society vide order dated 09/11/1998

and created new Shri Sarswati Smriti Co-operative Housing Society

Ltd. bearing Reg.No. Gh-18604/98 dated 09/11/1998 including the

land of the aforesaid agriculture lands of complainant along with

many other survey numbers. The said housing society was also

divided into total-6 housing societies viz. part-06 to 11 bearing

Reg.No. Gh-20183 to Gh-20188 of the Shri Sarswati Smriti Co-

Operative Housing Society vide order dated 06/05/2002 and the

aforesaid agriculture land of the complainant and other agriculture

land of many other survey numbers in Thaltej were included in Shri

Sarswati Housing Society Ltd Part-6. It was found in the

investigation that, Saritaben Natwarlal Patel and other 9 persons

were appointed as promoters thereof and passed resolution in

collusion with each other to change the name of Shri Saraswati

Smriti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. to Saaranga Co-operative

Housing Society Ltd and being the secretary of the same, the

accused No.06 of the column No.2 agriculture land in favor of both

the accused at column No.1 and accused No.01 to 05 and 07 of

column No.2, in the capacity of Secretary of the Saranga Co-

operative Housing Society Ltd Regi. No.Gh-20183 instead of giving

identity as Housing Society, gave identification of the society as

Saraswati Smriti Agriculture Co-operative Society Reg.No. Khe-

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

3848 dated 04/02/1995, and executed Sale Deed of the land of the

complainant situated at outskirt of Thaltej village Block/SUrvey

No.-465/1 admeasuring 4452 Sq. meter for Rs.6,55,824/- vide

registered document No. 1507/16 and block/ survey No.465/2

admeasuring 6070 sq. meter for Rs.8,94,176/- vide registered

document No.1508/16 on 30/06/2016, against the Housing Society

and similarly also executed Sale Deed for the lands of the other

survey numbers against the Society without any permission of the

Government. Investigation thereof is pending yet. In this manner,

the accused executed the criminal conspiracy hatched by them,

cheated the complainant, her mother and sisters, produced

fabricated Irrevocable General Power of Attorney as original and

on that basis, executed registered Sale Deed no.23751/91, dated

18/09/91 in favor of Saraswati Smriti agriculture society, which

was bearing false thumb impression/ signatures of the complainant,

her mother and sisters were in the Irrevocable General Power of

Attorney. It was not submitted in original documentary evidence

and destroyed the same. Moreover, fabricated Special Power of

Attorney and Agreement to Sell were prepared and thumb

impression/ signatures of the complainant, her mother and sisters

were made in the said documents, thus by preparing fabricated and

false documents, they usurped the possession of the land of the

complainant and her sisters.

6. As per investigation, there are no witnesses to the

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

forged power of attorney. Forged Power of Attorney is jointly

executed in favour of the applicant and his brother Natvarlal

Bholidas Patel but has only been used by applicant. As the forged

Power of Attorney is executed before Executive Magistrate

Metropolitan Court, Ahmedabad, it bares the rubber stamp of that

office. Investigation is carried out for recovering original power of

attorney but same is not recovered as the applicant and other

accused are not co-operating with the investigation and therefore,

the investigator attempted to get a copy of it from the office of the

Executive Magistrate. However,through a letter dated 16.01.2021

the office of Executive Magistrate had intimated the investigator

that they could not provide any particulars about forged power of

attorney as the Xerox copy provided to them does not bear Sr. No

i.e. Serial Number and it also does not bear Sanath Number of the

advocate. On a bare reading of last page of the forged power of

attorney, it does neither shows as to who had signed as the

Executive Magistrate nor as to who had either signed or written on

left side of that page.

7. It also appears from the investigation that out of four

donors of the power of attorney, only the first informant is alive and

other three have died. Within two days of execution of power of

attorney i.e., on 18.09.1991, a registered sale deed for complaint

land was executed by applicant in favour of Shri Sarasvati Smurti

Kheti Sahakari Mandali Ltd. in which the applicant, his family

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

member and joint donor of power of attorney named Natvarlal

Bholidas Patel had interest as members of this society.

Consideration of complaint land allegedly paid to donors of

complaint land, shown to have been paid through 2 different

cheques dated 12.10.1990 and 15.03.1991 is without any narration

of bank details. Donors are not accepting that they had received

any consideration money. Further, the applicant being an executor

of the registered sale deed is also not providing any details about

such payment. It is pertinent to submit here that both the cheques

are dated prior to the date of power of attorney i.e. 16.09.1991.

Therefore, if this consideration money was actually paid through

these two cheques this would be certainly stated in power of

attorney dated 16.09.1991. Hence it further substantiates the case

of investigator that the power of attorney is forged and reference

about consideration being paid as stated in the registered sale deed

is false and created.

8. As per the investigation, pursuant to registered sale

deed executed on the basis of forged power of attorney in favour of

Shri Saraswati Smruti Kheti Sahakari Mandali Limited, Thaltej.

This society was sub-divided into Saraswati Smruti Kheti Sahakari

Mandali Limited Division No. 1 to 5. Complaint land in this process

of sub-division went to Saraswati Smruti Kheti Sahakari Mandali

Limited Thaltej Division No. 1 along with other parcel of lands.

Particulars of the same have been placed by the applicant at page

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

80 to 82. Thereafter, Shri Saraswati Smruti Kheti Sahakari Mandali

Limited Thaltej Division No. 1 was further converted into a housing

society. Thereafter, this housing society is also sub-divided into

different sub-divisions pursuant to which, complaint land along

with different parcels of lands went to Shri Sarasvati Smruti

Cooperative Housing Society Limited Division No.6. Ultimately

somewhere in May, 2003 Shri Sarasvati Smruti Cooperative

Housing Society Limited Division No.6's name was changed to

Saranga Cooperative Housing Society Limited. All these societies

either Kheti Society and/or housing society belongs to applicant's

brother Natvarlal Bholidas Patel (co-donee of forged power of

attorney), applicant's other brother co-accused Dashrathbhai

Bholidas Patel as well as their family members.

9. The Court is also inclined to take into consideration

following aspects while considering bail application of the

applicant.

10. The respondent-State has filed affidavit of the

investigating officer. The Investigating Officer along with his

affidavit has also placed the affidavit which he placed in quashing

applications. It is clearly stated in these affidavits that the

applicant and other accused persons have not cooperated with the

investigation and therefore, a prayer is made in these affidavits for

vacating the order whereby other accused persons who are

beneficiary of forged power of attorney and family members of

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

applicant are protected from arrest. The investigating officer has

also placed a copy of the communication received from Deputy

Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad dated

29.12.2020 addressed to him stating different criminal acts of

applicant carried out through forming different societies. Such

societies are 45 in number.

11. The applicant is relying upon the order of granting bail

to co-accused applicant's real brother Dashrathbhai Bholidas Patel

by court of Hon'ble Sessions Judge. It is submitted that order

passed whereby, co-accused is granted bail vide order dated

21.10.2021. On a bare reading of this order more particularly,

paragraph 5 of the order it clearly shows that Ld. Sessions Judge

has committed grave error by granting bail to co-accused

applicant's real brother as entire order granting bail to applicant's

brother Ld. Sessions Judge has relied upon the submissions about

applicant Ramanbhai Patel being granted bail in the present

proceedings which as such is not only incorrect but misleading as

applicant's bail application is still under consideration and pending

before this Hon'ble Court and therefore, question of it being

granted bail as found in co-accused's bail order is gravest error and

for cancellation of it, respondent-State has already filed

Cancellation of Bail Application through Criminal Misc. Application

No. 21146 of 2021 which came for hearing on 04.01.2022 and on

request made by respondent-original accused for adjournment

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

matter is now adjourned on 18.01.2022.

12. The applicant and his real brother Dashrathbhai

Bholidas Patel who are also an accused in one another FIR

proceedings registered against them at Vastrapur Police Station for

different offences including offences punishable U/s. 307 of IPC

allegations made in it with regard to giving threat to witnesses and

exercising threat, coercion, etc. for executing documents in the

nature of settlement agreement, divorce deed, relinquishment of

right in properties, etc. and the same is found to be substantiated

from the conduct and behavior of the accused persons of this FIR

proceedings as found and observed in order dated 29.10.2021 by

Ld. Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Misc.

Application No. 17332 of 2021 whereby, applicant's real brother

Dashrathbhai Bholidas Patel is denied bail by this Hon'ble Court in

this referred FIR proceedings. In this very FIR proceedings

applicant is granted bail vide order dated 31.08.2021 in Criminal

Misc. Application No. 10438 of 2021 but State has filed challenge

to this order before Hon'ble Supreme Court which is registered as

Diary No.22461 of 2021 and the same is pending.

13. The offence cannot be viewed as a standalone offence,

but the conduct of the applicant, who has over the period

systematically, even at times misusing Court proceedings to take

over the land of the complainant, who is an old lady and her sister

(now deceased). This is not only a case of usurping or grab the

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

land. As a matter of fact, the Court has observed in maneuvering

of the land case be it in revenue or Civil Court, the applicant has

created a well-oiled machinery based on corrupt practices.

14. The entire investigation therefore indicates that with a

sole objective to grab the land of the complainant, the applicant

has resorted to collusive civil proceedings and such civil

proceedings were attended by an accomplice, purportedly

representing the complainant and his family members in the Civil

Suit though such Power of Attorney was in fact forged and

fabricated document. On the basis of such collusive civil

proceedings, the applicant has sought to get a stamp of approval on

the shady land deal. Therefore, mainly, the applicant and other co-

accused have in their common design have also made the Court of

law unknowingly part to it and that too only with an intention to

grab valuable land of the complainant.

15. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to and

rely upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Naveen Singh Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2021) 6 SCC, 191,

wherein the Apex Court, by referring to the facts of the case, has

set aside the judgment and order of the High Court releasing

accused on regular bail and recorded as under:-

"12.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that Respondent No.2-accused is facing the trial for the offences under Sections 420,467,468,471,120BIPC. It is

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

also required to be noted that the FIR has been lodged by the record keeper of the court on the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Unnao. After the enquiry report submitted by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao in which it was stated that the Court record has been manipulated and forged, the High Court directed the Learned District and Sessions Judge to look into the report and take further action and thereafter the FIR has been lodged against the respondent - accused for the aforesaid offences. If we consider the allegations, in that case, the allegations are very serious of tampering and/or manipulating the court record and Respondent no.2 has taken the benefit of such forged/manipulated court order in another case. It is also required to be noted that now after the investigation is concluded, the charge sheet has been filed against the Respondent - accused and even the charges have also reported to be framed. Thus, a prima facie case is found against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

12.2 If we consider the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that High Court has not adverted itself to the seriousness of the case and the offences alleged against Respondent no.2 - accused and the gravity of the matter. From the impugned order, it appears that the High Court has released Respondent No.2 - accused on bail in a routine and casual manner and without adverting to the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the matter relating to forgery and/or manipulating the court order.

From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that High Court has only

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

observed that since the innocence and complicity of the accused can be decided only after taking evidence with regard thereto, without commenting anything on merit as to the complicity, involvement and severeness of the offences, the case being triable by the Magistrate and the charge sheet having been filed and the accused is languishing in jail since 22.11.2018, is entitled to be released on bail.

12.3 However, the High Court has not at all considered that the accused is charged for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC and the maximum punishment for offence under Section 467IPC is 10 years and fine/imprisonment for life and even for the offence under Section 471IPC the similar punishment. Apart from that forging and/or manipulating the court record and getting benefit of such forged/manipulated court record is a very serious offence. If the Court record is manipulated and/or forged, it will hamper the administration of justice. Forging/manipulating the Court record and taking the benefit of the same stands on altogether a different footing than forging/manipulating other documents between two individuals. Therefore, the High Court ought to have been more cautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who is alleged to have forged/manipulated the court record and taken the benefit of such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he has been charge sheeted having found prima facie case and the charge has been framed.

12.4 Now, so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused that he has not obtained the certified copy

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

of the judgment and order of the Learned Sessions Court dated 23.12.2002 in which there are allegations of forging and manipulation and he has not produced the same in the case against him under the Gangsters Act is concerned. From the order passed by Learned Special Court Gangsters Act, it appears that the judgment and order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge dated 23.12.2002 was produced in which Respondent No.2 - accused Mahesh was shown as acquitted. On the basis of the same, the Learned Special Court acquitted Respondent No.2 accused. Therefore, in fact, he is the beneficiary of the said forged/manipulated court order. The Special Court has taken note of the order. It is the case on behalf of the accused that it might have been produced by his brother - Pappu Singh who was doing Pairokar on his behalf. The aforesaid is neither here nor there. Once he is the beneficiary of such forged/manipulated court order and having taken advantage of such order thereafter it will not be open for the respondent- accused to contend that it might have been done by his brother Pappu Singh who was doing Pairokar on his behalf.

12.5 At this stage, it is required to be noted that Pappu Singh has died subsequently. We do not express anything further on merits and go into detail as the trial is yet to take place and any further observation on merits may affect the case of the accused. Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the very serious allegations of forging/manipulating court order and having taken advantage of the same, the High Court is not justified in

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

releasing Respondent No.2 on bail. Merely because the charge sheet is filed is no ground to release the accused on bail. The submission on behalf of the accused that as the record is now in the court's custody there is no chance of tampering is concerned, the allegation against the respondent accused are of tampering/forging/manipulating the court record which was in the custody of the court. Seriousness of the offence is one of the relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail, which has not been considered at all by the High Court while releasing Respondent No.2 accused on bail.

12.6 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent - accused that the appellant has no locus to file the present application for cancellation of the bail is concerned, it is required to be noted that in fact, it was the appellant who approached the High Court alleging tampering of court record by the Respondent No.2 accused and thereafter, the High Court directed the Learned Additional Sessions Judge to submit his comments and thereafter the Learned Additional Sessions Judge submitted its enquiry report and thereafter, the FIR has been lodged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has no locus to file the present application for cancellation of the bail. Even otherwise in a case like this, where the allegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reason the State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that much important and it is insignificant.

16. Along with the present application, the applicant has

also filed another application for regular bail being Criminal

R/CR.MA/13068/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022

Misc.Application No.13093 of 2021 in connection with FIR being

CR No.11191045202003 of 2020 registered with Sola High Court

Police Station, Ahmedabad for offence under Sections 420, 465,

467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which has

been heard and disposed of along with this application by a

separate order.

17. The Court has also taken into consideration the fact

that the applicant is also being prosecuted with other offences

relating to land grabbing activity. The Court has reasons to believe