DASHRATHKUMAR HIRABHAI VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present application, the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR being CR No.1192015220529 of 2022 registered with Changodar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Ss. 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 120B of the Indian Penal Code dtd. 17/10/2022.

(2.) Heard Mr. Laxmansinh M. Zala, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Dipan Desai, learned advocate for the original complainant and Mr. D.M. Jaiswal, learned APP for the respondent State.

(3.) As per the FIR registered by one Nirmil Jitendra Shah, his wife Niyatiben Nirmil Shah is having dis-social personality disorder or is suffering anti-social personality disorder or socio- pathic and since 2004, the complainant had purchased a plot bearing Survey Nos. 1065/2, 1065/3 paiki and 1065/7, situated at Village: Modasar in a scheme namely Glad-1, having Plot No.W-67 in Safal Glad-1 by paying a consideration of Rs.1,02,72,400.00 by registered sale deed on 3/8/2018 and the same was used as weekend home. On 11/7/2022, in the office of Glad-1, he received a call from Rakesh Bhavsar that in his property name of Karan Devendrabhai Rabari is now inserted as owner of the property. Therefore, when the complainant inquired about the aforesaid incident, he found that the aforesaid property was sold by way of a registered sale deed dtd. 18/12/2018 to said Karan Devendrabhai Rabari through his wife Niyatiben Shah in the capacity of power of attorney holder of first informant and, therefore, upon inquiry, the complainant found that the total amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs was deposited through various cheques in the account of his wife Niyatiben and though the property was purchased by paying a consideration of Rs.1,02,72,400.00, the property was allegedly purchased by said Karan Rabari by paying a consideration of Rs.40.00 lakhs, which is Rs.62,72,400.00 less than the actual consideration paid by the complainant and even in a notice issued under Sec. 135D , wrong name and address of the complainant were mentioned to ensure that the aforesaid notice could never be served upon the complainant.