IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail can be granted where Applicants are ready and willing to abide by all conditions and custodial interrogation of applicants is not necessary.

ORDER (ORAL)

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.

2. By way of the present application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11192011201021 of 2020 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural), Dist.Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that land bearing Revenue Survey No.28/p, admeasuring 2-47-87 Hec.-Are-Sq.mtrs. (for short “the land in question”), situated at Village Dolatpara in the Sub-District Junagadh and in the registration District Junagadh was belonging to one Taraben Kakumal Rizvani, which was allotted by the District Collector to her vide order No.A/147 dated 12.12.1967. It is further alleged that after demise of Taraben, her straightline legal heir – sole daughter – Bhagiben Rameshbhai Bhoneja had executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of – (1) Jentilal Bhavanjibhai Sanandiya and (2) Jagjivanbhai Trikambhai Payani on 21.01.2010, which was duly registered before the Registrar under Sr. No.719. It is also alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sell, Bhagiben executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of – (1) Bipinkumar Mansukhbhai Sanandiya and (2) Dahyabhai Devubhai Dabhi on the same day – i.e. 21.01.2010, which was duly registered before the Registrar under Sr. No.718 dated 21.01.2010. It is alleged that in the above circumstances and the documents, there was an oral agreement of partnership arrived at between applicant No.1, (1) Jentilal Bhavanjibhai Sanandiya, (2) Jagjivanbhai Trikambhai Payani and (3) Bipinkumar Mansukhbhai Sanandiya and thereby the applicants acquire the partnership rights qua the land in question by way of agreement to sell and Power of Attorney.

3.1. It is also alleged that the revenue proceedings are pending before the District Collector, Junagadh for entering name of Bhagiben Rameshbhai Bhoneja as straight-line legal heir and, therefore, a registered sale deed cannot be executed in favour of the aforesaid partners, including applicant No.1. It is alleged that the first informant showed his interest in the transaction of the land in question and he becomes the partners of the land in question qua the rights of the applicant No.1 and in continuation of the same, a notarized partnership agreement has been arrived at between the first informant and the applicants on 19.02.2013 and the first informant paid Rs.25,00,000/- by way of cheques, which were deposited by the accused in the account. It is alleged that after receiving payment from the first informant, the applicants-accused are not entering the name of the first informant for entering his name in the revenue record. Consequently, the F.I.R. has been registered against the present applicants.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants have submitted that after filing of the F.I.R., the applicants have been called for by the investigating officer twice for recording their statements and the applicants have cooperated with the investigation and their statements have been recorded. It is also submitted that there is delay in registering the F.I.R. since the first informant has alleged that in 2013 the transaction in question is alleged to have been taken place and the F.I.R. has been registered in the year 2020. Learned advocate has further submitted that the dispute raised in the F.I.R. is purely of civil nature and instead of instituting a civil suit, the first informant is trying to give the criminal colour to resolve the civil dispute by way of abusing of process of criminal law.

4.1. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the first informant has deliberately not given a copy of the agreement dated 19.01.2013 executed between the first informant and the present applicants, which shows the mala fide intention of the first