FEROZE FALIBHAI CONTRACTOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.J. K. Shah, Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Nisarg Jain waives service of notice on behalf of First informant.

(2.) By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.-11196008200983 of 2020 registered with J. P. Road, Police Station, Vadodara City for the offenses punishable under Sections 177, 181, 406, 465, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6D of the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the FIR discloses commission of offence to be under section 6D of 'the Act'. He further submitted that the section 6D of 'the Act' came to be inserted after getting assent of the Hon'ble President and published in the Gujarat Gazette on 15.10.2020, whereas the present offence is said to have been committed between 04.05.2020 to 16.05.2020 and the FIR for the same came to be registered on 30.8.2020. Therefore, according to his submission no offence or part of any offence should have been registered under section 6D of 'the Act' against the present applicant prior to its insertion in 'the Act'. He further submitted that he is surprised how the complainant has invoked such provision, which was not there on the Statute-book and even, the police has registered the same without application of mind. He further submitted that considering the contents of the FIR, it is clear that the applicant cannot be said to have committed offence as alleged. In the nutshell, the allegations levelled against the applicant is that for getting the previous sanction for sale of immovable property owned by the applicant while making application in the affidavit annexed with the application, no religion of the applicant is mentioned therein despite of the fact that he belongs to Parsi community. It is further alleged that in the said affidavit his address of residence is shown to be Tandalja, Vadodara and thereby, he is said to have created a false document. He submitted that not only the alleged act, even presuming to be true, would either fall under section 6D of 'the Act' or any of the section of the Indian Penal Code. According to his submission, unless any provision of law obliges a person to mention religion even in any affidavit, non-mentioning the same would not attract any offence under any law. He further submitted that even a person, who has more than one residential addresses, mere mentioning of the address than the usual place of abode, cannot be termed as creating any false document as alleged. He submitted that the applicant is being falsely attempted to be roped into an offence not by any person aggrieved but basically by the Chairman of the society, where immovable property of the applicant is situated and he attempts to sell it after following due procedure under the law. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.