BALVANTSINH SHIVUBHAI RAOL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-11191011210028 of 2021 registered with DCB Police Station, District Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Ss. 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that applicant had not proved any false signature of Khodaji Shivaji Thakore and has not fabricated any document, much less irrevocable power of attorney and agreement to sale as alleged. That in the whole complaint, the complainant does not say anywhere that at which particular point of time and date, she has come to know that the applicant has fabricated the document as alleged. That there is a delay of 14 years in filing of the complaint. That, complainant had already filed FIR Being CR No. 100 of 2019 before the Satellite Police Station and thus, complainant cannot file two complaints for the same offences. That the filing of the FIR is nothing but the misuse of process of law which cannot be accepted by any person having prudent sense. That the complainant is making the police authorities as tool to satisfy and settle his oblique motive.

(3.) It was further submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence but has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence only with an oblique motive and malafide intention. That, 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. That, 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. Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow present application.