The seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the potential influence on witnesses are crucial factors in deciding bail applications.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. J.K.S. hah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and Mr. Nirad Buch, learned counsel with Mr. Dipal R. Ravaiya, learned counsel for the original complainant.

2. By way of the present application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being I-C.R. No. 77 of 2018 registered with Junagadh “C” Division Police Station, District-Junagadh for offences punishable under 406, 420, 120-B, 506(2) and 34 of the IPC.

3. As per the FIR, in sum and substance, the complainant intending to purchase the land bearing Survey No. 141 Paiki, Plot No. 36 admeasuring 699 sq. mtrs. and Plot No. 33 admeasuring 519 sq. mtrs. running in the name of Varshaben Shaileshgiri Meghnathi and Jalpa Jayeshbhai Goswami. That Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi-the applicant herein is a power of attorney holder of the said land. The complainant through one Harsukhbhai Tita met the present applicant on 11.4.2018 and agreed to purchase the said land for total consideration of Rs. 2,44,00,000/- plus conveyance expenditure. On that day, as a token amount, Rs. 40 lakhs was agreed to be paid, out of which Rs. 5 lakhs was paid to the present applicant and Rs. 35 lakhs was paid to Harsukhbhai Tita upon insistence of the applicant. The term for payment was fixed as 9 months. The sale deed was decided to be executed at Rs. 87 lakhs as per the wish of the present applicant. After about 3 months, when the applicant was asked to execute the sale-deed, at that time, the applicant had insisted the complainant to pay Rs. 40 lakhs to Harsukhbhai Tita for settlement arrived at between the applicant herein and Harsukhbhai Tita, for which Harsukhbhai Tita had initiated FIR in the year 2006 which was to be withdrawn by him upon receipt of the said amount. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs. 40 lakhs to Harsukhbhai Tita, for which the applicant herein in his own hand-writing given the receipt. Thereafter, on 18.8.2018, Rs. 6 lakhs in cash was paid to the present applicant for the purpose of conveyance expenditure. On 21.8.2018, the applicant asked Rs. 77 lakhs in cash to be sent at his residence and further asked to pay Rs. 58 lakhs by way of RTGS and to give a cheque of Rs. 29 lakhs which he shall deposited after execution of the sale deed. Accordingly, on 27.8.2018, first RTGS of Rs. 29 lakhs made in account of Nishant Meghnathi and second RTGS of Rs. 29 lakhs was made in the joint account of the present applicant and his wife and 3rd cheque of Rs. 29 lakhs was given to the applicant. On 28.8.2018, as desired by the applicant, the complainant paid Rs. 77 lakhs in cash at his residence. Thus, the applicant after having received Rs. 77 lakhs in cash and having confirmed two RTGS, went along with the complainant to the office of the Registrar. However, the Sub-Registrar asked to modify the sale deed. Thus, the applicant along with son of the complainant went for modification of the said sale deed and at that time, the applicant had transferred Rs. 30 lakhs cash to his brother Nishant at Ahmedabad by way of Angadiya. Thereafter, while going back to Sub-Registrar’s office, the applicant somehow managed to escape and did not come to the Sub-Registrar for execution of the sale deed. Thus, the present complaint came to be lodged.

4. It appears that after lodgment of the FIR in the year 2018, the applicant remained absconder till his arrest on 6.12.2021 i.e. almost for a period of 3 years. Therefore, the warrant under Section 70 of Cr.P.C. was also issued.

5. The Investigating Agency thereafter filed charge-sheet against the present applicant. The applicant, therefore, approached the Sessions Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No. 112 of 2022. However, the District and Sessions Judge, Junagadh vide order dated 10.3.2022 rejected the said bail application.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the applican