IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by Court.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

As both these applications arise out of the same FIR, the same were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These applications are filed under Sections 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 2 in the present applications – original accused by orders dated 07.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 2491 of 2022 and 2492 of 2022 by the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, whereby, the learned City Civil Judge was pleased to grant anticipatory bail the respondent No. 2 – original accused, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for which, FIR No. 11191024220319 registered Ahmedabad City.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Jayesh Dave for learned advocate Mr. Varun G. Rai for the applicant – original complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 – State.

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant – original complainant vehemently submitted that despite the respondent No. 2 having been arraigned for a serious offence of cheating and breach of trust, the learned City Civil Judge has granted anticipatory bail to them, despite there being prima facie case against the accused persons. He submitted that the complainant had sold the land in question to the respondent No. 2 – Rameshbhai Ravjibhai Dobariya (in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12390 of 2022) through Ankitbhai Rameshbhai Sojitra (respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12404 of 2022), and she was paid Rs.28,86,000/- by cheque and Rs.6 lakh in cash and rest would be payable after effecting necessary mutation entries. It is further submitted that on account of Special Civil Suit No. 335/2011 was going on between the original complainant and her cousin brother and as the injunction was granted in the said suit, the original complainant, on a request made by purchaser - Rameshbhai Ravjibhai Dobariya (respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12390 of 2022), the said sale deed No. 3948 got cancelled and returned the money to him on 05.11.2018. However, the complainant, later came to know that the said purchaser (Rameshbhai Ravjibhai Dobariya) got executed another sale deed No. 3949 from the complainant in the name of others (5 in number) for a consideration of Rs.3.80 crore. Further, the said five persons executed a registered agreement to sell being No. 439 on 04.02.2020 in favour of Ankit Rameshbhai Sojitra, the respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12404 of 2022 for the land in question for a sale consideration of Rs.35 lakh out of which, Rs.5 lakh was given by cheque. In such a factual scenario, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there was a clear case against the respondent Nos. 2 herein, however, the learned trial Judge has, without taking into consideration the objections of the original complainant, granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons and thereby, has wrongly exercised the discreation in favour of the accused.

3.2 The learned advocate for the applicant – original complainant further submitted that surprisingly Ambabhai Popatbhai Vataliya and others, who had purchased the land in question from the respondent No. 2 – Rameshbhai Ravjibhai Dobariya (in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12390 of 2022) for Rs.3.80 crores, have executed an agreement to sell in favour of Ankit Rameshbhai Sojitra (respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12404 of 2022) for the land in question for a sum of Rs.35 lakh which is highly improbable and from such a transaction, the intention of the respondent No. 2 in these cases, clearly transpires to be mala fide., however, the learned Court below has failed to considered such an important aspect of the matter and thereby, has committed error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents – accused. It is submitted th