The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting and cancelling bail, considering factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of the punishment, danger of the accused absconding, and likelihood of the offence being repeated.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 12010 of 2019 is filed under Sections 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 2 therein by an order dated 01.05.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1146 of 2019 by the learned Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad, whereby, the learned City Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the said application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 – original accused by way of an order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No. 14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5186 of 2017, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for which, FIR C.R. No. I-110 of 2017 came to be registered before the Maninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad.

1.1 Whereas, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2022 is filed by the applicant – original complainant for certain directions.

2. Heard, Ms. Rashmi Pandya, appearing in person and learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for the respondent No. 2 – original accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 – State.

2.1 The learned advocate for the applicant – original complainant vehemently submitted that despite the respondent No. 2 having been arraigned in a serious offence, the learned City Civil Judge has granted anticipatory bail to him, despite there being prima facie case against the accused person. She submitted that at the time of considering the anticipatory bail application by the learned Court below, Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not there and the same came to be added later. Further, she submitted that since the coordinate Bench was not inclined to quash and set aside the FIR in question, the respondent No. 2 withdrew the quashing petition being Criminal Misc. Application No. 21451 of 2017 on 20.07.2021. The learned advocate for the applicant further vehemently submitted that according to the FSL Report, the handwriting of the applicant – complainant did not match and accordingly, the beneficiaries are required to be taken on remand so that the original culprits may be identified. Further, the accused persons, on many occasions, remained absent and thereby, did not attend the Court proceedings before the learned trial Court, which amounts to breach of one of the bail conditions. The applicant – party-in-person submitted that a total of 24, month-wise repeated offences, by way of two annual rent agreements, were committed by the respondent. She submitted that monthly rent was collected for about 36 months and deposited in the person bank accounts.

2.2 Thus, making above submissions, it is urged that these applications may be allowed and cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 – original accused as well as to pass the appropriate directions as prayed for.

3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for the respondent No. 2 – original accused while heavily resisting the applications, submitted that these applications are nothing but a revengeful act on the part of the applicant. He submitted that the applicant had no cordial relations with her nearest relatives and family and is in a habit of making false accusations against anyone and everyone. He submitted that from the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the applicant and the respondent No. 2, it clearly transpires that the dispute is civil in nature, however, it is given a criminal colour. It is submitted that the FIR filed by the applicant herein had completely false and frivolous allegations levelled against the wife of the respondent No. 2. The allegations made by the applicant included mainly of forgery whereby it was alleged that the respondent No. 2, in connivance of his wife, had forged the signatures of the applicant and in the said manner they had withdrawn ce