IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the privilege of anticipatory bail should be extended only in exceptional cases and that the nature and gravity of the accusation, as well as the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice, must be carefully considered.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present petitions 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.11192017240045 registered with Detroj Police Station.

2. The complainant was intended to sell his agricultural land being survey No.48 at village Juval Rupavati, Tal: Bavla, Dist: Ahmedabad and thereafter, the complainant came in contact with the petitioner and initially, it was decided to sell the land at Rs.23,51,000/- per vigha and the petitioner accused had given part sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. According to the FIR, the petitioner accused has secured the land by taking signature of the complainant and his wife on the promissory note. Some civil disputes also arises between the complainant and third party. The complainant was insisting for execution of the sale deed, but the petitioner accused denied and therefore, the transaction was discontinued and therefore, the complainant has given back the part sale consideration to the petitioner accused. But, again the petitioner met the complainant and decided to purchase the land of the complainant at the price of Rs.53 lakh per vigha. Rs.11 lakh was paid towards the part of the sale consideration and it was decided the execute the sale deed within few days. According to the FIR, on the date of execution of the sale deed, the petitioner accused has shown cheque of Rs.1.90 crore to the complainant and took him to the trust and took him to Mamlatdar Office, Bavla for execution of the sale deed, but ultimately, that transaction also failed and it was told by the complainant to the petitioner accused that you may get back your Rs.11 lakh. Then under the technical modus operandi, the petitioner started to grab the land of the complainant. The petitioner has firstly deposited Rs.10 lakh in the account of the complainant and then kidnapped the complainant and took him to the Sub Registrar Office and got the sale deed executed of the disputed land. The car in which the complainant was kidnapped was driving by the accused No.2, he has also threatened the complainant. Another accused Yuvrajsinh was accompanying Thar car with another care namely Hyundai. The complainant was given threat and also spoken filth and derogatory language. Hence, present FIR.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Valmik Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha for the complainant and learned APP.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He would further submit that the complainant after pocketing huge amount from the purchaser of the land and after executing the sale deed by remaining present in the Sub Registrar Office has filed impugned FIR to extort money. He would further submit that the entire story of kidnapping has been fabricated story to achieve the motive of extorting money from the petitioner accused. He would further submit that the complainant was never kidnapped or abducted, but the complainant on his own went with the accused in his car and it is clear from the CCTV footage. He would further submit that though it is alleged that the petitioner was threatening the complainant and his family members and under the threat, has got the sale deed executed. The said aspect is incorrect on the ground that the complainant himself went to the Sub Registrar Office and executed the sale deed after obtaining sale consideration. He would further submit that the FIR is filed after 19 days of the alleged incident, which itself indicates that the story in the FIR is concocted for the purpose of obtaining money from the petitioner by taking advantage of earlier transaction took place. In addition to above submission, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the accused No.2 has played very limited role in the commission of the offence. He would further submit that according to the FIR, the accused N