The seriousness of the offences, the accused's cooperation during investigation, and the existence of a prima facie case influenced the court's decision to reject the application for anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11191019220237 of 2022 with Vatva GIDC Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant states that the complainant has decided to purchase the property of the applicants in Rs.70 lakhs and the applicants have told the complainant that loan of Rs.30 lakhs is due of this property and the applicants have taken Rs.25 lakhs from the complainant and executed registered agreement to sell on 21.10.2019 and thereafter, the applicants neither given possession of the said property nor they have executed sale-deed of the said property and nor returned Rs.25 lakhs to the complainant. Though, applicants have executed registered agreement to sell, in favour of the complainant, the complainant did not receive money from the applicants and thus, they have committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. He further states that though the registered agreement to sell executed, the complainant has never asked for payment of remaining amount of the said property. It is further stated that the said property is sold to some other persons and power of attorney was also executed on 02.07.2020. He further states that the complainant has filed civil suit against the present applicant and the present transaction is of year 2019 and FIR has been registered in the year 2022 without there being any mention about the civil dispute. He further states that the nature of allegations and the same arisen out of the transaction, which is purely a civil nature and the same was given criminal colour and present FIR is filed almost after a period of more than three years just to extort more money from the applicant. He further states that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail submitting that the applicant herein has committed offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating with an ill intention of not paying remaining amount of property as per the agreement to sell and not given possession of the said property to the complainant. The offence is very serious and punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation is still pending and charge sheet is not filed. There are all possibilities that he shall not cooperate with the trial too. Learned APP further states that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to find out the motive of the crime. The investigation is required to be done and it is not possible without getting the clue from the applicant. Hence, considering the over all aspects, present application may not be granted.

5. It appears from the FIR that the FIR has been registered with regard to the property for which the complainant had paid Rs.35 lakhs to the applicant but neither the applicant has executed sale-deed nor has given possession of the property. It is reported that for the very property, the applicant had received Rs.35 laklhs from the complainant, also received Rs.10 lakhs from one Mr. Ashok Parihar and also received Rs.2,21,000/- from one Mr. Mehulbhai Kantilal Shrivastav and thus, the applicant has cheated three different persons for the same property, which is already mortgaged with bank. Thus, it appears that the applicant has collected Rs.47,21,000/- from three different persons towards agreement to sell of the same property and till date has not executed any sale-deed of the said property or has not given possession of the said property to anyone. It further appears that the complainant has filed civil suit for execution of sal