SANDEEP CHHAGANBHAI UGAREJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11213091230327 of 2023 with Sapar Veraval Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable under Ss. 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the complaint came to be filed at the instance of one Mr.Bharatbhai Karshanbhai, who is the owner of the plots nos.2, 11 and 12 situated at Revenue Survey no.204/3, village Veraval, Taluka Kotda Sangani, District Rajkot. Further it is alleged that as per the original lay- out plan of the TDO, the said revenue survey number having 13 plots and there was common passage and common plot was prescribed for the general and common utility as per the plan. The said plan approved by the TDO and the same was subsequently forged and map was prepared and between plot nos.10 and 11, plot no.14 was renumbered and it was stated as ownerhsip of accused no.1 - Thakershibhai Dudabhai. It is alleged that the said plot is thereafter sold by accused no.1 to accused no.2 - Vinodbhai Arjanbhai by way of registered sale deed and Vinodbhai sold it to the present applicant and thus present applicant is involved in the present offence. He has nothing to do with the offence. He has even filed the complaint under the Land Grabbing Act. Even on the face of it, it is accepted that the alleged transaction of forged document took place in the year 2001. At that time the present applicant was minor. Even Thakershibhai Dudabhai is released on regular bail while Vinodbhai and other similarly situated other accused are also enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

(3.) Mr. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent - State submitted that government record being forged and all the accused have in their connivance have committed an offence and thorough investigation is required and for that custodial interrogation is only a way. Further he has submitted that Thakershibhai is enlarged on regular bail and role of other accused were on different footing hence, benefit of parity is not available to the present applicant and hence he has requested to dismiss the present application.