The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence and the requirement for custodial interrogation in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. The applicant-original accused no.1 has filed the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’ for short) for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-11191011210095 of 2021 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad city.

2. The original first informant has filed FIR being C.R.No.I11191011210095 of 2021 registered with DCB police station, Ahmedabad city against the present applicant and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short). It is mainly alleged in the FIR that the accused, with a malafide intention to grab the lands, hatched conspiracy till 1.7.2019 and even after knowing that they were allotted block no.6 instead of block no.59 at the time of consolidation and variation scheme by the government in the year 1968, prepared different and forged power of attorney and banakhat and on the basis of the same, the lands of survey/block no.59/1 old survey number 73/1, 73/2, 75 and 76 of mouje village Hanspura, Ta.Asarva, Dist.Ahmedabad purchased by complainant by sale deed which is non-agricultural land, the applicant herein showed the land as agricultural land and by preparing false and forged sale deed in his name, produced the same in the office of sub registrar Ahmedabd 13 as if it is a correct one and got the same registered. It is submitted that by doing so, the applicant has committed the offences as mentioned hereinabove under the provisions of the IPC.

3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Jal Unwala assisted by learned advocate Mr.Hardik Jani for the applicant, learned senior advocate Mr.N.D.Nanavaty assisted by learned advocate Mr.Vimal Purohit for original first informant and learned APP Mr.Raval for respondent-state.

3.1 Learned senior advocate Mr.Unwala appearing for the applicant mainly contended that for the alleged incident which had taken place during the period between July, 2010 to July, 2019, FIR is lodged on 10.8.2021. Thus, there is a delay in lodging the FIR and therefore the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is aged about 64 years and therefore looking to his age also, this Court may exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. At this stage, learned senior advocate would submit that prima facie, the ingredients of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC are not made out. There is no question of forgery of any document and therefore also, the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

3.2 Learned senior advocate further submitted that the applicant has purchased the land in question by registered sale deed from the co-accused and therefore the applicant is bonafide purchaser. Even the revenue proceedings are pending before the concerned revenue authorities and therefore the filing of the FIR against the applicant for the alleged offences is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court and therefore on this ground also, the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

3.3 Learned senior advocate further submitted about the history of the land in question and contended that the land bearing survey no.73/1 and 73/2 was originally belonging to Dhanaji Havji Kumbhar i.e. predecessor of Hargovan Dhana. The said land was in the name of Dhana Havji Kumbhar since 1947-48. After his death, the name of Bai Moti as guardian of minor Harvogan Dhana and Reva Dhana i.e. predecessors of the original accused nos.2 to 7 was mutated in the revenue record vide entry nos.815 and 816 on 25.12.1953. Therefore, the accused nos.2 to 7 being legal heirs of Hargovan Dhana and Reva Dhana were having right, title and interest in the said property. Thereafter, somewhere in the year 1963, the land bearing survey nos.73/1 and 73/2 came to be consolidated in block no.59. The revenue proceedings were initiated by the a