BHARATBHAI BHIKHABHAI HIRPARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for short 'the Atrocities Act') praying for an order of anticipatory bail in connection with the First Information Report being C.R.No.11214033200884 of 2020 registered with Mangrol Police Station, District - Surat Rural for the alleged offence punishable under Ss. 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sec. 3(1)(f) of 'the Atrocities Act'.

(2.) It is the case the of the prosecution that the accused including the present appellant, who is said to be a purchaser of the land, have connived together and hatched a conspiracy to take away the land of the complainant and other co-owners by fraudulent transactions not only showing cheque consideration and huge cash for asserting that it has been legally transferred by way of a sale deed, which is at page 46 of the compilation. In short, the allegations against the present appellant as also other co-accused that by creating forged documents, based on such forged documents, they attempted to produce it in the Government Offices as true and correct and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence. Not only that, from the account of the present appellant, it is asserted in the FIR, two cheques were deposited into the account of Jagdishbhai Narsinhbhai Parmar i.e. father of the first informant. Not only the said sale deed is executed by impersonation but after that also photo of the person executing the same, is also removed and replaced to show that transaction has been done by the original owner of the land, who is bedridden since 2018, and the alleged transaction of sale came to be executed on 4/2/2020.

(3.) Mr. Asim Pandya, senior advocate, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that for the so-called transaction dtd. 4/2/2020, an FIR has come to be filed on 28/8/2020, and therefore, it inspires no confidence. He has further submitted that, on the contrary, the appellant is duped by the father of the first informant and other co-accused mentioned in the FIR, and therefore, he filed complaint against them on 11/7/2020, addressing a copy thereof to Police Commissioner, Surat City as also Police Inspector, Sarthana Police Station, Surat. He has further submitted that, as such, the presence of the appellant as a purchaser of the property, while executing sale deed in the Office of Sub Registrar, is not at all required according to law. As such, the other co-accused mentioned in the FIR, according to the submission of senior counsel, duped not only the appellant but the first informant and his father also. He has further submitted that for return of two cheques of Rs.25,00,000.00 in all towards consideration, the appellant attempted to deposit the same through RTGS on 18/2/2020 and 3/3/2020 but since the account in the name of the father of the first informant was closed, it was not successful. Therefore, according to his submission, he is the bonafide purchaser and has been duped by other co-accused and even the father of the first informant, as claimed in his complaint addressed to the Police Commissioner as also Police Inspector, Sarthana Police Station. He has further submitted that all these documents, even if it is forged one, it is a paper transaction and the first informant is not deprived of anything and even possession is also not obtained and therefore, the appellant be granted an order of anticipatory bail. He has further submitted that he is ready to cancel the sale deed in favour of the complainant and on that condition, anticipatory bail be granted to the present appellant.