STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHMADRAFI YUNUSBHAI VASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr K P Rawal, learned APP for the applicant and Mr Mahesh Pujara for Mr Ashish M Dagli, learned Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.

(2.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed below Exh.10 dated 8.4.2011 passed by the learned Addl.District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc.Application No.248 of 2011 whereby the respondents No.1 and 2, original accused No.4 and 5 were granted Anticipatory Bail in connection with the offences registered with the Rajkot Taluka police Station, District Rajkot being I-CR No.245 of 2010 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, the present Criminal Misc. Application has been preferred by the applicant for cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail granted under section 439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

(3.) LEARNED APP Mr K P Rawal has drawn my attention to the complaint as well as the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer along with the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the learned Addl District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.248 of 2011 and vehemently submitted that the role of the respondents No.1 and 2 was that they put their signatures and remained as witnesses to the bogus and false sale deed and thereby helped the main accused persons in grabbing the land as referred above as if they were true, correct and genuine which is very serious in nature and in spite of the fact that by way of filing affidavit by the Investigating Officer the prosecution has objected to the above referred Criminal Misc. Application before the trial court Judge and drawing attention of the said Court that the present respondents No.1 and 2 had also committed similar offences in respect of agricultural land of village Bedla, Taluka Rajkot wherein both the accused were arrested and charge sheeted and they are habitual offenders, the trial court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondents. He has then submitted that the charge is in relation to offence under section 120-B of the IPC and in that case the collective involvement of all the accused in the commission of the crime ought to have been looked into. But ignoring such principles of law, the learned trial court Judge has granted anticipatory bail which deserves to be cancelled. Hence this Criminal Misc. Application has been filed by the State for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the trial court.