IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation based on prima facie evidence of forgery, and highlighted the balance between personal liberty and societal interest in granting anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11216011240149 registered with Infocity Police Station, Gandhinagar.

2. A criminal complaint being FIR no. 11216011240149 dated 21.03.2024 is registered with Infocity Police Station, Gandhinagar filed by the respondent no.2 after 23 years in respect of the mutation of entry made in the year 2001 being mutation entry no. 2314 upon the application of the complainant herself recording the legal heirs of the complainant way back in 2001 in respect of various parcels of lands, situated at Sargasan, District Gandhinagar. It is further submitted that land bearing survey Nos.217/4, 217/5, 218/2, 221, 222, 224, 225/1 etc. have been purchased by the complainant along with partner Narendrabhai Patel by registered sale deed and after deed of partition, land bearing survey Nos.221, 22, 231, 232, 234 and 235 came to the share of the complainant. However, the complainant came to know that one mutation entry was made in the revenue records being No.2314 and that her signature was forged by present petitioner and three others and therefore, present FIR is filed.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. PC Kavina appearing with learned advocate Mr. RD Dave for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Tolia for the original complainant and learned APP appearing for the State.

4. It is sought to be submitted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. PC Kavina that according to the FIR, alleged signature of the complainant is forged in the year 2001 and consequent thereto, revenue proceedings are taken place so also civil proceedings and as such, much water was flown, but the impugned FIR is filed by the complainant in the year 2024 without explaining any delay. He would submit that this issue alone runs in favour of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. He would submit that silence of the petitioner for 24 years would presume that the impugned FIR is motivated and filed at the instance of some third party.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. PC Kavina would further submit that for the alleged act of forging the signature is nowhere beneficiary to the petitioner, as upon such revenue proceedings, along with the petitioner, name of their brothers are also mutated. He would further submit that that the mother of the petitioner is the complainant herein and she is 90 years old and she has filed complaint against her elder son, who is aging 70 years old, which prima facie indicates that the mother is under the influence of some third party and she has filed motivated and influenced FIR. He would further submit that the fact that the mother – complainant herein is under the influence of some third party could be demonstrated on the ground that upon the alleged forged signature of the complainant, mutation entry took place in favour of four brothers and not in favour of the petitioner. Yet, the complaint/ FIR is also filed against the present petitioner. The argument is also canvassed to the effect that subsequent to mutation entry, parcels of land were also sold by the complainant and that too twice Thus, he would submit that the FIR appears to be fictitious and filed after unexplained delay and thus, there is no reason to have custodial interrogation as everyone knows the case since the beginning.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. PC Kavina has referred and relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and others reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 to submit that the High Court has inherent powers and the Court should exercise such inherent power for degenerating the proceedings, which has been used as a weapon for harassment or persecution. He pressed into service para 7 of the judgment, which reads as under:-

7. The second limb of Mr. Mookerjee's argument is that in any event