Successive anticipatory bail applications should demonstrate substantial changes in circumstances; principle of parity does not justify granting bail if relevant roles differ and prior application was rejected.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since complainant and the accused in both the matters are same, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, both the matters are decided analogously.

2. By way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No.15704 of 2022 u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”), the petitioner – original complainant Nirmil Shah prays to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to accused Karan Devendrabhai Rabari and Arjun Devendrabhai Rabari in Criminal Misc. Application No.2112 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Court. Whereas, by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No.8424 of 2023, the petitioner complainant seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Karan Devendrabhai Rabari in Criminal Misc. Application No.1214 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Court.

3. The above reliefs are claimed by the petitioner – complainant in background of the facts stated herein below:-

3.1. The applicant having lived in the city for an extended period of time was looking to purchase a weekend house in the outskirts of Ahmedabad in order to spend peaceful and quality time with friends and family. Accordingly, while searching for an appropriate property, the applicant came across a scheme namely Glade-One at Sanand, Ahmedabad, which, was being developed by one of the most prominent developers of Ahmedabad. The applicant after visiting the site in person found the same to suit his requirements and accordingly, the applicant on 03.08.2018 by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed bearing No. 9336 purchased an immovable property bearing unit No. W67 admeasuring 200.29 sq. meters constructed upon a plot admeasuring 1215 sq. meters forming part of land bearing survey no. 1065/3P, 1065/7 and 1065/2 in Village Modasar, Taluka Sanand, Registration District Ahmedabad [herein after referred to as "the said property" for the sake of brevity) for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,02,72,400 (Rupees One Crore Two Lac Seventy-Two Thousand Four Hundred). The applicant submits that a share certificate bearing No. 448 also came to be issued to the applicant by the society which was constituted by the developer. Hence, the applicant became the absolute and exclusive owner of the said property.

3.2. Pursuant to the said property having been purchased and fully decorated and furnished to suit the requirements of the entire family, the applicant and his family members regularly began utilizing the said property.

3.3. The applicant's wife namely Mrs. Niyatii Nirmil Shah whose maiden name was Neha Shah whom the applicant had married in 1996 and who had mothered two children namely Malaika born in 1999 and Sahir born in 2002 with the applicant was suffering from acute psychological disorder more particularly known as Dissocial Personality Disorder which disabled her since 2004. On account of the aforementioned disorder, she took actions and decisions which were completely and utterly unacceptable and did not suit any social standard or norms. In addition, thereto, on account of the aforementioned disorder, she resorted to meaningless and compulsive lying. Moreover, on account of the aforementioned disorder, she allegedly spent money beyond her means and in order to complete the cycle of payment allegedly ended up borrowing money from not only friends and family members but even money lenders. The aforementioned friends and family members did not charge any interest however, the money lenders charged exorbitant interest rates which apparently led her into spiral