Gujarat High Court
Mahendrabhai Vallabhbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 August, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10604/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 10604
of 2024
==========================================================
MAHENDRABHAI VALLABHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR K M ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 01/08/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the
respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused
has prayed for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail in
connection with the FIR be i ng C. R.
No . 1 1 8 2 2 0 2 3 2 3 0 1 3 6 o f 2 0 2 3 registered wit h Maroli
Police Station, Navsari.
3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned
APP for the respondent - State.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
the applicant is apprehending arrest in connection the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10604/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the
applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-
allowed.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of
anticipatory bail, inter alia, contending that the present
applicant had purchased the disputed land from the person,
who was not the only owner of the disputed land. The other
owners had not executed a sale-deed a sale-deed in favour of
the present applicant and despite the same, the present
applicant has been occupying the disputed land in an
unlawful manner. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the
present application.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the original complainant
has also opposed the present application, inter alia, contending
that the present applicant had entered into an agreement to
purchase the disputed land from the person, who was not the
actual owner of the land and after having executed the said
agreement, the applicant had entered into possession of the
disputed land and since then the present applicant is in unlawful
possession of the disputed land. He further submitted that the
first informant came to know about these facts in the year 2014
and several attempts were made to get the land back, however,
the applicant did not hand over the possession of the disputed
land to the original complainant and that is how in the Year
2022, the present complaint has been lodged for land grabbing.
He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10604/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. From the record, it appears that in
the Year-2009, the present applicant had entered into an
agreement to purchase the land in question and on the basis of
the said agreement, the applicant had been put in possession of
the disputed land, and thereafter, it also appears that a registered
sale-deed also has been executed in favour of the present
applicant. Though the original complainant was very much aware
about this transaction since the Year-2009, the FIR came to be
registered only in the Year-2022 and till then no steps whatsoever
appear to have been taken for getting the land back.
8. This Court has considered following aspects,
(a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be
considered by this court;
(i) prima facie case
(ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this court is inclined to consider the case of the
applicant.
9. This Court has also taken into consideration the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10604/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565. Further, this Court has
also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in
Special Leave Petition No. 7281-7282/2017 dated
29.01.2020.
9.1 This court has also considered the judgment in the
case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8
SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observe that
whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would
be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the
discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the doors of remand by the
Investigating Officer is open and therefore also this court is
inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
10. In the result, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the
event of arrest in connection with a F I R be i ng No . C. R.
No . 1 1 8 2 2 0 2 3 2 3 0 1 3 6 o f 2 0 2 3 registered wit h Maroli
Police Station, Navsari on executing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like
amount on the following conditions;
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on
0 6 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 4 between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10604/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
(c) 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
court or to any police officer;
(d) 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;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address
to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not
change residence till the final disposal of the case till further
orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned
trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before
the concerned trial court within a week; and
11. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in
the present order.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
