DHARMESH PRAFULBHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is a successive application, filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No.I-179/2018 with Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara City for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant and the co-accused had filed a previous application for anticipatory bail. However, sofaras the present applicant is concerned, the application was withdrawn whereas in the same order, the application qua the co-accused - Rajubhai Vithalbhai Patel was considered and such an accused was enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Advocate for the applicant that the reason for filing a successive anticipatory bail application is that the applicant is now having an audio video CD wherein it is recorded that the disciple of the Pujari, namely Rambalak Dasji has admitted to give the permission to the applicant for taking out the proceedings under Section 36 of the Bombay Trust Act (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act'). Learned Advocate for the applicant has also sought to argue on merits by contending that the applicant was a bonafide purchaser and has settled the deal of the property belong to Shri Ramji and Ranchhodji Mandir Trust and that he had come in contact with one - Rambalak Dasji in the year 2015 who was the disciple of the only Trustee of the aforementioned Trust, namely Shri Ram Narayan Dasji Pujari. It is submitted that the applicant had relied upon the said Rambalak Dasji and on his say, had shown interest in the land belonging to the Trust and infact, had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/= in cash and cheque of Rs.11,00,000/= in favour of Rambalak Dasji. It is submitted that as per the understanding, the entire burden of getting the permission under Section 36 of the Act from the Charity Commissioner was on the said Rambalak Dasji and therefore, the applicant had no role to play at all, till the stage of revenue permission from the Charity Commissioner, in connection with the land belonging to the Trust.