SUJAN AZAD PARIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail.

(2.) The applicant is named as an accused and apprehends his arrest in connection with C.R.-I No. 69 of 2016 registered with the Varnama Police Station, District : Vadodara (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate for the applicant has stated that, the complainant is the sister and the accused - applicant is the brother. It is submitted that, essentially this is a family / property dispute and the sister has already initiated the civil proceedings in that regard. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings before the Bombay High Court in the Suit No.465 of 2016, wherein the present complainant is the plaintiff and the present applicant - accused is the defendant. It is submitted that, having failed to get any interim relief in the said matter, the present FIR is filed as an arm twisting tactic. In this regard attention of this Court is invited to the order passed by the Bombay High Court in Notice of Motion (Lodg.) No. 924 of 2016 in Suit No. 462 of 2016 dated 18.07.2016. It is submitted that soon thereafter, the present FIR is filed on 08.09.2016. Reliance is also placed on the correspondence exchanged by and between the complainant - sister and the accused - brother, which is on record. He has submitted that the criminal proceedings are initiated in the background which is narrated in the letter of the sister dated 21.09.2015. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed any wrong and the arrest would only bring social stigma and disrepute to the applicant. It is submitted that keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, this application be entertained.