Gujarat High Court
Jitendrakumar Chandulal Thakar ... vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/3685/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3685 of 2022
==========================================================
JITENDRAKUMAR CHANDULAL THAKAR (PANDYA)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR J.K. SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This application has been filed under section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11209024211304 of
2021 registered with Jadar Police Station, Sabarkantha
for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467
and 468 of IPC.
2. Mr. Kunal S.Shah, learned advocate for the
applicant referring to the order of the Additional Senior
Civil Judge dated 26.12.2016 in Regular Civil Suit No.7 of
2010 submitted that, wife of the present applicant was
given the rights in the property and as per the order of
the Court, the wife was having 1/5th share in the house
as well as in the agricultural land, which is the suit
property. Mr. Shah stated that it was only after the death
of the wife of the applicant the document appears to be
R/CR.MA/3685/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
executed to add the name of the son of the deceased as
an heir to the Suit property and thus stated that there
was no such intention to sell the property of other co-
sharer and the applicant as a father of son was only
intending to add the name of the son as a successor to
1/5th share of the suit property, as was declared by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge.
2.1 Mr. Shah further stated that there could not be
any intent to defraud, and relying on the judgment of
Dr.Vimla Vs. Delhi Administation, reported in 1963
CrLJ 434, states that such document even if considered
would not fall under the definition of the word
"fraudulently" as fraud would include the ingredients of
deceit and injury. Mr. Shah submitted that no injury has
been caused to the other co-accused as none of the
property of co-sharers have been disturbed by the present
applicant. It was, therefore, prayed that the present
application may be allowed and the applicant herein may
be released on regular bail.
3. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor stated that, false and forged document was
created by affixing photographs of the co-sharer with
their forged signature and those documents under the
nomenclature of family settlement was produced before
the authority and therefore stated that those documents
would be considered as forged documents. It was,
therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in
R/CR.MA/3685/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
favour of the applicant.
4. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and
perused the material on record. It appears that there is
no malicious intention of the present applicant as by way
of the document he was trying to get the name of his son
included as a co-sharer in the property after the death of
the wife of the present applicant, who was granted share
in the property by way of order in Regular Civil Suit
No.7/2010. Thus, taking this fact into consideration, this
Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be
exercised in favour of the applicant.
5. Hence, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11209024211304 of
2021 registered with Jadar Police Station, Sabarkantha
on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the
conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse
liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within
a week;
R/CR.MA/3685/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
[d] not leave India without prior permission of the
concerned trial court;
[e] furnish the present address of residence to the
Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of
execution of the bond and shall not change the residence
without prior permission of the concerned trial court;
6. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular
relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will release the
applicant only if he is not required in connection with any
other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the
above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge
concerned will be free to issue warrant or take
appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed
before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this
order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email
forthwith.
(GITA GOPI, J.)
Pankaj
