JITENDRASINH DAJUBHA ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-­accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I- 178 of 2018 registered with Nikol Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 384 , 387 , 506(2) , 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5, 33(1) and 42 of the Money Lenders Act.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Yatin Oza with learned advocate Ms.Gayatri B. Jadeja for the applicant submitted that the land bearing Revenue Survey No.840 situated at Naroda, Ahmedabad, which was owned and possessed by Ahmedabad Panjrapole Sanstha, is purchased by the applicant by way of an auction held before the Charity Commissioner. Sale Deed dated 28.09.2010 came to be executed by the Ahmedabad Panjarapole Sanstha in favour of the applicant. In the said land, there were existing tenants, who were claiming their rights. However, with a view to make the title of the land clear and marketable, the applicant settled the issue with them by making necessary payment and, therefore, the said tenants relinquished their rights in faovur of the applicant. It is further submitted that the complainant wanted to purchase the said land and, therefore, Agreement to Sell came to be executed by the applicant in favour of the complainant on 13.05.2011. However, for certain reasons, the complainant could not get the Sale Deed executed in his favour and, therefore, another Agreement to Sell came to be executed in favour of co-­accused Dhirubhai Bhanderi wherein the complainant is a confirming party. Said Dhirubhai Bhanderi - original accused No.8 requested the complainant and the applicant herein to execute Sale Deed in favour of his family members i.e. Ramilaben Dhirubhai Handeri and Bhumikaben Sunilabhai Bhanderi. In the said document, the applicant is cited as seller and the other two aforesaid persons were cited as purchasers and the complainant was cited as confirming party. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate referred the documents produced on record and contended that the brother of the complainant, who has tried to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance, is no way connected and is not a signatory to any of the said document. It is, therefore, contended that the present applicant is falsely implicated in the incident, in which, the brother of the complainant has tried to commit suicide.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate further contended that the applicant has not given any threat to the brother of the complainant as alleged and no material is collected by the Investigating Agency in form of call details. It is submitted that the applicant is not having any connection with the brother of the complainant. However, because of the land dispute between the complainant and the present applicant, the complainant has falsely implicated the present applicant.