Gujarat High Court

Rajesh @ Raja Bata Amratbhai Patel ... vs State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2022

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

     R/CR.MA/17090/2022                           ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17090 of 2022

==========================================================

     RAJESH @ RAJA BATA AMRATBHAI PATEL AMRATBHAI PATEL

                          (RAJESH AMRATBHAI PATEL)

                                   Versus

                             STATE OF GUJARAT

==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR NIRUPAM NANAWATY, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR KEYUR GANDHI, ADVOCATE
GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK S SHETH(3586) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR S I NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR VAIBHAV SHUKLA, ADVOCATE
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

MR L B DABHI, APP for the Respondent-State
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                              Date : 10/10/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Amit Desai with

learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nirupam Nanawaty with learned

advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi and learned Advocate Mr. Maulik

Sheth on behalf of the applicant.

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

2. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B.

Dabhi for the respondent-State

3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. I. Nanavati with

learned Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Shukla on behalf of the first

informant.

4. By way of this application under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for

being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR

No. 11206020220655 of 2022 registered with Kadi

Police Station, District Mehsana, on 16.07.2022 for

offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 323,

143, 147, 148, and 149of the Indian Penal Code and under

section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

5. The FIR inter-alia alleges that the family of the first

informant had entered into an agreement with his cousin

brother and his family who were the owners of a parcel of

land, which will be referred to as disputed land hereinafter

and whereas it appears that there were some civil litigation

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

also going on as regards the land in question. It is alleged

that the present applicant had purchased the property in the

year 2021 in the midst of the legal proceedings and whereas

it is alleged that the accused had come to the property in

question at the behest of and upon the instructions of the

present applicant and had assaulted the brothers of the first

informant as well as one more person who was present at

the site of the incident and whereas it is alleged that one of

the brothers of the first informant Sukhdevbhai had expired a

day after the incident i.e. on 16.07.2022. It further appears

that later on approximately a month after the incident the

second brother of the first informant who had also sustained

injuries had also expired on 14.08.2022 though there is some

controversy with regard to the said person having being

discharged and later on having been admitted and

unfortunately expiring.

5.1 At this stage it would also be relevant to mention that it

is nobody's case that the present applicant was at the spot of

the incident or had committed any overt act in so far as the

incident is concerned and whereas as referred to herein

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

above the only allegation against the applicant is that the

incident had occurred at this behest or upon his instructions.

6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Amit Desai on behalf of

the applicant would take this Court through various

documents, more particularly with regard to the Civil

Proceedings and the Revenue Proceedings and would submit

that while the first informant who was the plaintiff in the Civil

Suit claimed possession of the property from 1995 and

whereas the Civil Suit came to be decided in the year 2019

and whereas while there was an interim relief in favour of the

plaintiff in the interregnum yet in the Civil Suit the learned

Trial Court while rejecting the suit had not believed the

possession of the plaintiff. Learned senior advocate would

submit that the original land owner had also after the order

of the learned Civil Court applied for conversion of the

property and whereas vide order dated 16.10.2021, the

Collector, Mehsana had granted N. A. permission and

whereas the possession of the property is verified in the said

proceedings and whereas the same, according to the order,

is with the original owners of the property . Learned senior

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

advocate would further submit that as a matter of fact while

the order of the learned Civil Court had been challenged by

the present first informant and whereas in the said appeal

proceedings no interim relief had been granted in favour of

the first informant. Learned senior advocate on the basis of

this and other documents would try and emphasis that the

possession of the property in question was with the sellers of

the property and the same had passed over to the present

applicant and therefore, there was no question for the

present applicant to have attempted to take law in his hands

for the purpose of getting the possession of the property in

question. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate would

submit that the land had been purchased after the decision

of the Civil Court, when there had not been any issue with

regard to the title of the property.

6.1 Learned senior advocate would thereafter draw the

attention of this Court to the FIR and would submit that the

FIR for such a serious offence which had occurred according

to the FIR itself between 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM on 15.07.2022

had been registered at 23:30 hrs on the next date i.e. on

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

16.07.2022. Learned senior advocate would submit that the

delay of 36 hours in filing the FIR, is only on account of the

fact that the first informant had contrived to somehow

implicate the present applicant as owner of the property and

whereas it is submitted that it is only on account of such a

design on the part of the first informant that the delay had

occurred. Learned senior advocate would also draw the

attention of this Court to the fact that the incident in

question had happened approximately half a kilometer away

from the Police Station and whereas it is submitted that the

first informant in the FIR inter-alia states that his brother who

was residing in the same vicinity had informed the first

informant who was residing at Ahmedabad about the other

accused having entered into the land and having assaulted

the brothers of the first informant at the behest of the

present applicant. Learned senior advocate would submit

that the brother who was present in the vicinity of the land

neither calls the police nor calls the ambulance nor calls any

neighbours or friends or any family members and rushes to

the spot of the incident and calls his brother who is residing

at Ahmedabad and whereas the said aspect according to

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

learned senior advocate is one more issue which would show

the frivolity in the prosecution as far as the present applicant

is concerned. Learned senior advocate would further take

this Court through the recitals of the FIR and would submit

that as per the FIR, the first informant and his son reached

the spot of the incident approximately after half hour to one

hour and whereas they had witnessed the other accused

assaulting the brothers of the first informant and whereas

the first informant or his son do not try to intervene and they

stand at the fence and watch the assault in question. It is

submitted that the said behavior of the first informant and

his son is absolutely suspicious and raises questions about

their motive. It is further submitted by learned senior

advocate that the FIR does not reveal as to how the injured

victims had reached the hospital, which also raises questions

about the motive of the first informant.

6.2 Learned senior advocate would submit that the present

first informant is relying upon an N.C. complaint given by the

first informant on 15.04.2022 to the police authorities inter-

alia alleging that the accused i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

behest of the present applicant had come to the land and

had threatened the brothers of the first informant.

6.3 Learned senior advocate would also draw the attention

of this Court to certain affidavits submitted before the

learned Magistrate filed by the first informant, his family

members as well as the victim of the incident apart from the

deceased brothers of the first informant and would submit

that all the affidavits are completely contrary to each other

and whereas learned senior advocate would emphasis on the

affidavit submitted by one Bhavesh Arvindbhai Shukla i.e son

of the brother of the first informant, more particularly as

regards to the aspect that the brother of the first informant

having called the first informant as regards the incident in

question. Learned senior advocate would submit that the

said Bhavesh in his affidavit dated 27.07.2022 i.e.

approximately after 11 days of the incident had filed an

affidavit inter-alia alleging that he received a message/phone

call at around 11:00 AM from the first informant himself that

there is an attack at the land of the first informant and

whereas he was asked to rush to the spot. It also appears

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

that at that time the said Bhavesh had no idea about any

injury caused to his uncles at the land in question yet it

appears that the said person had called up 108 ambulance

service. It also appears that instead of rushing to the land

the said person had gone to the Police Station and it is

alleged that inspite of request the Police Authorities had not

gone to the aid of the family of the first informant. Such and

other various inconsistencies have been brought to the

notice of this Court by learned senior advocate in the

affidavit filed by the family members of the first informant.

Having regard to such circumstances, learned senior

advocate would submit that the present applicant appears to

have been falsely implicated more particularly only on

account of an allegation that there was a dispute with

regard to the possession.

6.4 Learned senior advocate would submit that there being

no material which would show that the present applicant had

in any way either conspired or instructed the other accused

to have the possession of the property vacated or to do away

the deceased to death, the present applicant ought not to

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

have undergo the rigors of custodial interrogation that too in

such a serious offence.

7. This application is vehemently objected to by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi. At the request of

this Court, learned APP has provided to this Court statements

of the persons who were the actual assailants and who have

been taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. On

perusal of the statements of the accused Labhubhai it

appears that the said person was the originator of the

transaction with regard to the present applicant having

purchased the land in question. It appears that the said

Labhubhai had an oral understanding with the seller of the

property of having purchased the land at around Rs. 2.21

crores and whereas the land was to be sold to the present

applicant at around Rs. 2.50 crores. It also prima-facie

appears that the onus of ensuring that the possession is

given to the purchaser of the property i.e. the present

applicant was on the co-accused Labhubhai and Ratnabhai.

7.1 It is also pertinent to mention here that while there is a

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

slight inconsistency in the statement of accused Ratnabhai

as compared to the statement of Labhubhai but the

underlying intention of securing around Rs. 29 lakhs from the

transaction and also of being responsible for handing over

the possession of the property to the present applicant is

clearly made out from the said statements.

7.2 Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence the applicant may not be

released on anticipatory bail by this Court.

8. This application is also objected to by learned senior

advocate Mr. S. I. Nanavati on behalf of the first informant.

Learned senior advocate would take this Court in detail

through the orders of the Civil Court and whereas learned

senior advocate would submit that as such there was no

dispute with regard to the fact that the possession of the

property was with the family of the first informant. It is

submitted by learned senior advocate that even a perusal of

the judgment of the learned Civil Court, which according to

the present applicant was in favour of the original

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

defendants, would show that the learned Civil Court had

specifically mentioned that the plaintiff is not able to prove

his possession over the property in question. Learned senior

advocate would submit that the learned Civil Court had not

come to a specific finding that the present first informant

and his family members were not in possession of the

property. Learned senior advocate would also submit that as

such there was a issue with regard to the possession and

whereas the possession of the property was with the present

first informant and his family members and after the land

had been purchased by the present applicant, during the

course of proceedings, after name of the present applicant

had been mutated in the revenue record, more particularly

vide an entry which was certified on 11.04.2022, that the

present applicant started taking action for getting possession

of the land in question. Learned senior advocate would also

emphasis on the complaint submitted by the present first

informant and would submit that at the relevant point of time

i.e. on 15.04.2022, there was no inkling on the part of the

first informant as regards such a serious issue taking place

for getting possession of the property. Learned senior

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

advocate would submit that even in such application, it was

specifically mentioned that the persons named in the said

application i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3 had come to the

property at the behest of the present applicant and had

threatened the brothers of the first informant that they would

be done to death if they would not vacate the property in

question. Learned senior advocate would also rely upon

affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned

Sessions Court and would submit that the Investigating

Officer has clearly observed that the present applicant had

promised an amount of Rs. 2.21 lakhs for getting the

possession of the property in question and whereas it also

appears that the present applicant was in touch with the

accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the days prior to the date of the

incident in question. Having regard to such submissions

learned senior advocate would request this Court not release

the present applicant on Anticipatory Bail more particularly

considering the fact that the allegation against the applicant

is of having conspired to do two persons to death.

9. Heard learned senior advocates for the respective

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

parties and learned APP for the respondent - State. While

this Court is conscious of the fact that a detailed

examination of the facts and material is not necessary at this

stage of considering an application for Anticipatory Bail and

whereas the following relevant aspects are considered by

this Court for deciding the present application:

[1] It clearly appears that the present applicant was

not amongst the assailants and whereas the present

applicant was not present at the scene of offence.

[2] While it appears that the present applicant was

owner of the property in question and whereas while it

has been attempted to be argued by learned senior

advocate Mr. Desai for the present applicant that there

was no dispute as regards to possession of the property

and whereas while in the considered opinion of this

Court as far as the official documents including the

order passed by the learned Civil Court as well as the

N.A. order by the Collector would show that the

possession was not with the first informant and his

family members but infact, actually, more particularly,

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

placing reliance upon the statement of the co-accused

who have been apprehended, it prima-facie appears

that there was some dispute with regard to the actual

possession of the land.

[3] It also appears from the statement of the accused

i.e. co-accused Labhubhai and Ratnabhai, that the said

accused had initially entered into a deal with the

original owner of the property from whom the present

applicant had purchased the property. It appears that

the said co-accused had fixed the price of the land at

Rs. 2.21 crores with the original owner of the land and

whereas the land was to be sold to the present

applicant at Rs. 2.50 crores. It appears that the

difference of Rs. 29 lakhs was to be kept by the co-

accused Labhubhai and Ratnabhai.

[4] It also appears very clearly from the statement of

the said accused persons that the onus of getting

vacant possession of the property was upon the said

accused persons.

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

[5] It further appears that the statement of the co-

accused prima-facie appear to be confirmed that they

are land brokers and whereas the same aspect has

been mentioned by the first informant in his original N.

C. complaint dated 15.04.2022. It also appears that in

none of the statements the co-accused Labhubhai or

Ratnabhai state about the applicant having promised

any money for vacating the land in question and

whereas it also appears that the amount of Rs. 2.21

lakhs referred to in the affidavit of the Investigating

Officer before the learned Sessions Court, was the

amount which was to be given to Labhubhai and

Ratnabhai as brokerage for the land in question.

[6] It further appears that apart from this reference to

the amount of Rs. 2.10 lakhs, there is not reference of

such an amount more particularly there being no

reference that the applicant having promised any such

amount to the co-accused for vacating the property in

question.

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

[7] While it appears that the present applicant may

have asked the said accused to abide by the promise of

getting vacant possession of the land in question but in

the considered opinion of this Court such request for

abiding by their own promise would not automatically

translate into being part of a criminal conspiracy under

section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

[8] It also appears to this Court that the other co-

accused including brother of Ratnabhai i.e. Rajubhai

had come to the land at the behest of the accused

persons Labhubhai and Ratnabhai.

[9] From the statements of co-accused it does not

appear that the present applicant had given any specific

instructions to the said accused either to have the land

vacated forcibly or to take law in their hands and/or to

even assault and more particularly to do the deceased

to death. None of the statements reflect any positive

instructions by the present applicant except an

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

instruction/request to the accused persons Labhubhai

and Ratnabhai to abide by their promise and get vacant

possession of the land.

[10] It further appears that the applicant is a developer

and whereas the co-accused with whom the applicant is

shown to be in touch near around the date when the

incident had happened could not be the only material

on the basis of which the applicant could be required to

undergo custodial interrogation, as such telephonic

conversation between a land developer and land broker

would be in the normal course of events and even the

co-accused do not claim to have been instructed by the

present applicant to do any illegal act.

[11] It also appears that the FIR has been filed, with a

delay of 36 hours and whereas it appears that the said

aspect, would be very relevant for the purpose of the

present application more particularly if considered from

the perspective of the fact that the Police Station was

only half a kilometer away from the place of the

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

incident.

[12] It also requires to be mentioned that the

statement of the first informant, his brother Arvindbhai

who informed him about the incident, affidavit of son of

Arvindbhai, affidavit of son of the present first informant

Pratikbhai and affidavit of son of one of the deceased

Sukhdevbhai i.e. Raj, all point out to the inconsistencies

in the theory propounded by the prosecution.

[13] It appears, as can be made out from the FIR as

well as the affidavits referred to hereinabove that

brother of the first informant who was residing in the

near vicinity of the place where the incident had taken

place, had initially instead of either calling out the

police or any other authorities had informed the present

first informant who was residing approximately 45

minutes to 1 hour away about the incident.

[14] It also appears that son of one of the deceased

was also having a shop which was adjacent to the land

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

in question and whereas upon hearing the noises about

the assault, he had gone to the place of incident on his

scooter and whereas instead of trying to help his father

and father's brother, Raj Sukhdevbhai had taken the

third injured persons on his scooter to a village in the

vicinity from where the said person appears to have

gone to some hospital. It further appears that the said

person neither tried to intervene nor gathers any of his

friends or relatives to go to the place of incident more

particularly, since it appears that the said person was

the first person from the family to reach the place of

incident on account of the fact that he had taken one of

the injured during the course of incident yet the said

person neither goes to the Police Station nor informs

any of his friends and intervenes.

[15] It also appears that while the first informant in the

FIR inter-alia states about being informed by his brother

between 9:00AM and 10:00AM about the other accused

having attacked his brother in the land in question yet

in his application to the Police Inspector which was

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

affirmed before the learned Magistrate, it appears that

the said brother of the first informant Arvindbhai does

not mention about any such phone call.

[16] It also appears that while the FIR mentions about

5 persons having entered the agricultural field, the

injured witness states about 10 persons having entered

the agricultural field whereas in his affidavit Raj son of

deceased Sukhdev Shukla mentions about 100 persons

having entered in the agricultural field. Thus it clearly

appears that there is an attempt by the prosecution to

exaggerate the version.

[17] It also appears that while at the relevant point of

time none of the persons i.e. the first informant or his

family members had called up either 100 for Police

assistance or had visited the Police Station yet later on

in their affidavits before the learned Court below, it is

attempted to be stated that at the relevant point of

time, 100 number had been called by many of the

family members and whereas there was no response

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

and whereas it is also stated that some of the family

members including Arvindbhai and his son had visited

the Police Station requesting for assistance and

whereas the same had been refused. Such submission

with regard to 100 number as well as the family of the

first informant having visited the Police Station is

strongly refuted by learned APP Mr. Dabhi upon

instructions from the Investigation Officer.

[18] It further appears that while the family members

of the first informant had inter-alia alleged about having

gone to the Police Station at the time of the incident

and also having called up 100 number for Police

assistance in their affidavit before the learned

Magistrate yet it also appears that in the detailed

affidavit-in-reply filed by the first informant there is no

reference to such facts of the family of the first

informant either having gone to the Police Station

during the course of incident or even trying to call 100

number during such time.

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

[19] In so far as the aspect of present applicant having

an antecedent is concerned, it appears that an FIR

inter-alia for offence punishable under section 304, 337,

308, 195, 196 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code had

been registered against the present applicant for an

accident which had occurred in a property developed by

the applicant. Such FIR being of the year 2021 and

whereas the learned Sessions Court had granted

Anticipatory Bail to the present applicant and whereas

the applicant had also approached this Court praying for

quashing of the FIR and vide an order dated

10.01.2022, the learned Co-ordinate bench of this Court

had been pleased to direct the Investigating Officer not

to file chargesheet without permission of this Court

whereas liberty to continue investigation was granted.

In the considered opinion of this Court, an FIR for an

offence punishable under section 304 of the Indian

Penal Code where the applicant had been released on

Anticipatory Bail and where this Court had deemed it

appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer not to file

chargesheet would not lead to an automatic conclusion

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

that the applicant is habituated in committing offences.

[20] Having regard to the observations made

hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this Court

more particularly in view of the statements of the co-

accused who have carried out the actual assault and

form the inconsistencies in the version put forth by the

first informant and his family members, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the aspect of frivolity

in prosecution cannot be ruled out.

[21] While this Court is conscious that the allegation in

the FIR is with regard to causing death of two persons,

which is as submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.

Nanavati one of the most serious offences against the

human body but at the same time in the considered

opinion of this Court, the aspect of frivolity in

prosecution, which would lead to the liberty of a person

being impinged upon and such a person being required

to undergo custodial interrogation for no reason, is also

an aspect which would equally weigh with this Court.

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

10. This Court has also considered the fact situation from

the context of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694,

more particularly from the context of the parameter which

have to be taken into consideration while dealing with an

application for Anticipatory Bail. Having regard to the same,

this Court observes that while the nature and the gravity of

accusation is undoubtedly serious more particularly having

regard to the offences alleged at the same time, the exact

role which is attributed to the applicant, in the FIR is of being

a conspirator and whereas as noted hereinabove, from the

investigation papers it clearly appears that neither there was

any conspiracy nor the present applicant had in any way

instructed any of the other co-accused to take law into their

own hands. Furthermore, insofar as the antecedent of the

applicant is concerned as noted hereinabove, while the

applicant is named in a FIR, the applicant had not previously

undergone any imprisonment and whereas as noted

hereinabove, the applicant had been released on

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

Anticipatory Bail by the learned Sessions Court with regard to

the said offence and whereas this Court had also taken

prima-facie cognizance of the FIR. It also appears that there

is no apprehension voiced by the Investigating Authority that

there is any possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice. It

also appears that prima-facie there is no possibility of the

accused committing any similar offence more particularly in

view of the fact that the applicant is shown to be a developer

of land and whereas in all these years no such complaint

having been registered against the applicant.

10.1 It also appears that prima-facie the accusations have

been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the

applicant by arresting him more particularly since it appears

that the applicant is attempted to be roped in as an accused

merely on the basis of an assumption, which assumption in

the considered opinon of this Court, prima-facie not

appearing to be correct as from the statement of the co-

accused.

10.2 It also appears that grating Anticipatory Bail to the

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

present applicant would not have any effect of large

magnitude more particularly on account of the fact that the

offence is personal in nature.

10.3 Furthermore, having evaluated the entire available

material and the exact role of the present applicant, in the

considered opinion of this Court, prima-facie the present

appears to be a case of over-implication since the present

applicant is sought to be implicated by the aid of section 34

and 120-B and whereas there is no common intention which

could be prima-facie made out by this Court. More

particularly considering the investigation papers which

reveals that the responsibility of getting vacant possession of

the land was upon accused Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, it also

appears that there is no agreement by the parties to commit

an offence more particularly there being no material suggest

such an agreement between the parties which would be an

essential component for implicating the application on the

basis of section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

10.4 Insofar as the balance which is required to be struck

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

between any prejudice to the free, fair and full investigation

and prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified

detention of the accused, in the considered opinion of this

Court to balance the said aspect, while this Court proposes to

release the present applicant subject to imposing certain

stringent conditions so as to ensure that there could not be

any prejudice to the investigation. Stringent conditions could

also be imposed upon the applicant to ensure that there is

no apprehension of tampering of witnesses or any threat to

the complainant.

10.5 Insofar as the aspect of frivolity of prosecution is

concerned, this Court is inclined to hold in favour of the

present applicant more particularly relying upon the

observations of Hon'ble Apex Court that 'the element of

genuineness only shall have to be considered in the matter

of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt

as to the genuineness of the prosecution in the normal

course of events the accused is entitled to an order of bail.'

That as noted hereinabove, as far as the applicant is

concerned, the prosecution prima-facie appears to be

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

frivolous since there are grave inconsistencies in the case of

the first informant, more particularly with a view to implicate

the present applicant and whereas it also appears as noted

hereinabove from the investigation papers that neither the

applicant was part of any conspiracy nor the present

applicant had any common intention nor did the applicant

instruct the other co-accused to take law in their hands,

rather as it appears the co-accused in furtherance of their

responsibility to have the land vacated had taken law in their

hands.

10.6 In this view of the matter, more particularly having

considered the fact situation from the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, it clearly appears to this Court that

discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the present

applicant.

11. In the result, the present application is allowed by

directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested

pursuant to the FIR No. 11206020220655 of 2022

registered with Kadi Police Station, District Mehsana,

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a

personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with

one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make

himself available for interrogation whenever

required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police

Station on 12.10.2022 between 11:00 a.m. and

2:00 p.m.;

(c) shall mark his presence at the concerned Police

Station once every week till the chargesheet is

filed;

(d) shall not enter the District Mehsana till the

chargesheet is filed except for the purpose of

co-operating with the investigation;

(e) shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the fact of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

Court or to any police officer;

(f) shall not obstruct or hamper the police

investigation and not to play mischief with the

evidence collected or yet to be collected by the

Police;

(g) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish

the address to the Investigating Officer and the

Court concerned and shall not change his

residence till the final disposal of the case or till

further orders;

(h) shall not leave India without the permission of

the Court and, if having passport shall surrender

the same before the Trial Court within a week.

12. Despite this order, it would be open for the

Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand

of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it

just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on

merits. 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

R/CR.MA/17090/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

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