Ranjanben Vallabhbhai Tank vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 1444 Guj

     R/CR.MA/20236/2022                             ORDER DATED: 13/02/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20236 of 2022

==========================================================
                          RANJANBEN VALLABHBHAI TANK
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR IH SYED, SR. ADV. WITH MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI(5320) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE

                                Date : 13/02/2023

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-11192062220105 of 2022 registered with Vithalapur Police Station, District Ahmedabad Rural for the offence punishable under sEctions 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the present applicant is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question and she paid full consideration of the land to the erstwhile owners. That the complainant has not filed any civil

R/CR.MA/20236/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2023

suit against the accused nos. 1 to 7. Moreover, the accused no.1 to 7 has clearly mentioned in the registered sale deed in favour of the present applicant that they had not sold the property to anyone. That, the applicant has been wrongly mentioned as an accused in the impugned FIR and there is no allegation of overt act played by the applicant.

3. It was further submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. That, applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow present application.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. That, the applicant is involved in the serious offence as

R/CR.MA/20236/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2023

alleged and therefore, no leniency view would be taken in favour of the applicant while releasing him on anticipatory bail. That, the applicant was well aware of the agreement to sale of the complainant in spite of that she has purchased the land at lowest price. It was necessary for the applicant to check title clearance certificate which has been intentionally avoided. That active role has been played by the applicant and thereofre, her role cannot ebe viewed lightly. Ultimately, it was submitted by learned APP for the respondent-State to reject present application.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, it appears that learned Sessions Court has rejected the anticipatory bail filed by the applicant observing that the applicant is the purchaser of the land and agreement to sell which was executed with the complainant indicates the amount of RS. 14,00,000/- per bigha while the sale deed executed in favour of the present applicant reflects full and final consideration of the land as Rs. 11,50,000/ and the land in question amounts to ad-measuring 4-06-54. That the land in question was sold to the applicant and the present applicant had purchased without verifying the title also. That, the agreement to sale was not cancelled by the original land owners. Learned Sessions Court has further

R/CR.MA/20236/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2023

observed that deep investigation is required which will not be possible without custodial interrogation of the applicant.

6. It appears from the record and conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Court while rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant that the investigation is going on and for reaching to the root of the offence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.

7. In case of Prahlad SIngh Bhati versus N.C.T. Delhi and another reported in 2001 AIR SCW 1263, has observed as under in para 8 of the report :

"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the

R/CR.MA/20236/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2023

purpose of granting the bail, the Legislature has used the words 'reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

8. In case of XXX v/s Arun Kumar C.K & Anr.

Reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 (Criminal Appeal No. 1834/2022) @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7188/2022), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

"Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court

R/CR.MA/20236/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2023

wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.

Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment."

R/CR.MA/20236/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2023

9. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid down by the apex court and considering the averments made in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after considering the observations made by the learned sessions judge concerned, it appears that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the investigation of the offence is presently going on and therefore, as per my view, this is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this application is required to be rejected.

10. Before parting with this judgment, it is hereby clarified that the aforesaid observations made in this order have been made for the purpose of considering the present application for anticipatory bail. Therefore, same shall not come in the way of the trial court for considering the application that may be filed by the applicant for regular bail or at the time of trial and the trial court concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

11. In the result, this application is rejected. Rule Stands discharged.

(SAMIR J. DAVE,J) K. S. DARJI