The judgment established the seriousness of offences related to forgery and land scams, highlighting the need for custodial interrogation and the impact of fraudulent practices on individuals and communities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. J.S. Adeshra waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2-original complainant.

2. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.Part-A-11822015230772 of 2023 registered with the Jalalpore Police Station, Navsari of the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120(B) of the IPC.

Factual Matrix

3. The broad facts and events as discernible from the record may be stated as under:

(i) The first information report came to be filed by the first informant, namely, Bhanuben @ Jyotsnaben Wd/o Hasmukhbhai Devjibhai Patel and D/o. Keshavbhai Ramabhai on 27.06.2023 for the incident alleged to have been taken place in the month of May, 2005 arraigning the present applicant as the sole accused.

(ii) It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is a widow having two sisters and one brother and doing household work. She is the youngest sister and brother is younger to her.

(iii) It is stated in the complaint that the land in question bearing Revenue Survey Nos.199/1 and 199/2 (old tenure land) situated at Jalalpore total admeasuring 0-09-11 is her ancestral property which was purchased by her father, namely, Keshavbhai Ramabhai Patel on 17.11.1960 from one Maganbhai Chhibabhai which came to be certified in the village Form No.6 on 12.06.1961 vide Entry No.2947.

(iv) It is alleged in the complaint that the present applicant-accused, as a power of attorney holder of deceased Keshavbhai Ramabhai, in connivance with the other co-accused, has fraudulently sold out the aforesaid land in question to the other co-accused by executing a bogus registered sale-deed.

(v) It is stated in the complaint that the complainant came to know about such fraud when the power of attorney holder of the son and daughter of her brother, namely, Panchabhai Dudhabhai Dudhar made an application before the concerned police station as regards the aforesaid fraud committed by the applicant-accused qua their share in the land.

(vi) Thereafter, the complainant elicited the copies of the 7/12 abstract, 8/A and the Record of Rights from the office of the Mamlatdar, from which, it appears that the said land is running in the name of Labhuben Gordhanbhai Patel. However, upon deep scrutiny of the record, the complainant came to know that the name of her father Keshavbhai Ramabhai was running in the revenue record from 1961 to 2005.

(vii) Thereafter, during the course of such inquiry, the complainant came across one general Irrevocable Power of Attorney duly executed by her father in the name of the present applicant-accused on 31.05.2005 which was notarized by one notary Harshad I. Naik on 20.06.2005.

(ix) It is alleged that on the basis of the said power of attorney, the applicant-accused, as a power of attorney holder of Keshavbhai Ramabhai, has sold out the ancestral land of the complainant to the co-accused Labhuben Gordhanbhai Patel on 11.05.2005 by way of registered sale deed bearing No.4330/2005. The allegation is that despite the fact that the father of the complainant had died in the year 1984, the present applicant-accused has created a bogus power of attorney in his name by forging the signature of her father but the applicant-accused has not put his signature as a holder. Hence, the impugned FIR.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Dipak Patel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the alleged incident took place somewhere in the year 2005, for which, the first information report came to be lodged on 27.06.2023. The applicant-accused was arrested on 27.08.2023 and he is in jail ever since. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted that the father of the complainant was the actual owne