AMBUBHAI JAYANTILAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent No1 and Mr. P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent 2.

(2.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for an order of anticipatory bail in connection with an offence registered being C.R.No. 11184002210080 registered at Chotta Udaipur Police Station for the offences under Ss. 406 , 420 , 427 , 504 , 506(2) , 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(2) (va), 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of 'the Act'. It is asserted in the first information report that the accused - Appellants have on 30/11/2020 at about 5:00 p.m. demolished go-down which was taken on rent by the first informant and taken away the possession thereof where the first informant was running Geeta Gas Agency and the documents pertaining to his business have also been missing from there. It is further alleged in the first information report that there is a false signature of the first informant in a written communication and no accounts were given by the accused inspite of agency for the earlier period and thereby committed the aforesaid offences along with the offence under 'the Act'.

(3.) Mr. Nair, learned advocate for the Appellants submitted that the first informant was running a Gas Agency in the go-down owned by the Appellants rented to him and out of his own volition, he informed the IOCL for the change of place of business as the period of 25 years was coming to an end in a near future and ultimately he shifted to the new place. As such, he has filed a suit against the Appellants praying that he may not be dis-possessed without the due process of law which is still pending before the Competent Court where no any relief is yet granted. It is further submitted that it is nothing but a pure and simple civil dispute between the Appellants and the first informant which has been given a criminal colour, that too, by invoking provisions of 'the Act' which prima facie cannot be invoked with a view to deprive the Appellants of their statutory rights to apply for an order of anticipatory bail. Taking this Court to the contents of the FIR, it is submitted that there appears no offence even asserted to have been made out either for an offence under Sec. 3(1) (r) or under Sec. 3(1) (s) of 'the Act'. He has further submitted that reference of certain Ss. is made in his FIR only with a view to see that he can invoke the provisions of 'the Act', which is otherwise not made out. Therefore, he has prayed that the Appellants be granted an order of anticipatory bail.