VEDPRAKASH DEVKINANDAN CHIRIPAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel Mr.S.V. Raju with learned advocate Mr.Bhadrish Raju for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.B. Dabhi for the State.

(2.) The applicant has prayed to delete two conditions being condition Nos.2 and 3 imposed in order dated 04th September, 2014 of learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) (Rural) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1191 of 2014. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge granted the applicant the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by imposing appropriate conditions.

(3.) It appears that First Information Report bearing M Case No.02 of 2012 was registered against the applicant who was arraigned as accused No.2 at Vatva Police Station on 03rd October, 2012, in respect of the alleged offence under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 457 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. What was alleged in the F.I.R. was that land bearing Survey No.183 at Saijpur-Gopalpur, Taluka City Ahmedabad was belonging to father-in-law of the complainant and it was in her name in the government records, further that the complainant, her husband and her children were five heirs. It was further alleged that the accused persons including the applicantaccused No.2 illegally constructed a wall on the said land and grabbed it. It was alleged that the owners were the complainant side and despite that they having registered sale deed in their favour, the accused committed the said criminal act by trespassing. It was further alleged that the applicant-accused had colluded to forge the power of attorney and on that basis executed registered sale deed. It is the allegation that the accused persons forged the signatures, fabricated power of attorney and using them as genuine, executed the sale deed in respect of the said land. The applicant-accused No.2 was shown as purchaser in the so-called agreement to sell executed, for which subsequently sale deed was executed. It was further stated that in the sale document the person who was shown as confirming party was power of attorney holder of the applicant herein and therefore, it was alleged that the confirming party as well as the person who accepted the sale consideration, were the one and the same-namely the present applicant. The land was subsequently got converted into nonagriculture. The above is the gist of the allegations of the detailed complaint filed. Pursuant to that, chargesheet is submitted and the criminal case is pending before the competent court.