LAWS(GJH)-2011-10-218

DEVDA DUNGARSINH BHARATSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On October 04, 2011
DEVDA DUNGARSINH BHARATSINH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. 1-30 of 2010 registered with Dhanera Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 420, 34 and 120-B of the IPC.

(3.) Heard Mr.P.M.Thakkar, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr.D.B.Patel, for the applicant. Mr.Thakkar has read complaint and contended that date of power of attorney is 16.10.2008 and registered Sale Deed is made on 21.10.2008. The present applicant is not party in any transaction. He has contended that present applicant is not power of attorney holder or beneficiary in second Sale Deed dated 27.8.2009 made in favour of third party. He has contended that entry came to be certified on 3.10.2009 and further sale is carried on 3.11.2009. Thereafter, present applicant has filed complaint against present complainant and it , is pending in the Court. It is contended that after filing of the complaint illegal demand was made by the Investigating Officer and present applicant lodged a complaint before the ACB and trap was carried out by the trapping officer in connection with demand and amount was accepted by the Ex-Investigating Officer and then Investigating Officer was arrested and now he is suspended. He has also contended that there is no prima facie case made out to establish role of the present applicant. He has contended that present applicant is not conspirator, abettor or provocator. He has also contended that two Civil Suits are pending which are filed by the present complainant against some other purchasers and present applicant is not party in that Civil Suits. He has contended that other two accused and Notary are released on anticipatory bail by this Court. He has contended that present applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation and for interrogation. He has prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.