ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Anticipatory Bail in connection with F.I.R. being C.R. No. 11191048240101 2024 registered with Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and

120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in the present offence, the applicant is arraigned as an accused simply because; he had signed the sale-deed in the capacity of a witness. The present applicant has not forged any document. As per the case of prosecution, though the original owner Laxmiben had expired much prior to the execution of sale-deed, some other lady i.e. accused no.4 had impersonated as original owner Laxmiben and had executed the sale-deed in favour of the accused no.1. The accused no.1, who is the direct beneficiary in the present office, has been considered for grant of bail by the concerned Session Court. Similarly, the other co-accused viz. Rajesh Ramabhai Solanki, who is alleged to have played role identical to the present applicant in the present offence, has also been considered for grant of bail by the concerned Sessions Court. In fact, the role played by the said Rajesh Solanki is more graver than the role played by the present applicant since, he had identified co-accused as Laxmiben at the time of execution of the sale-deed. He has submitted that the concerned Sessions Court has declined the application of the present applicant for anticipatory bail merely on the ground that the condition of the amount of consideration of Rs.1,31,00,000/-, the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- had come to the account of the present applicant. As per his submissions, after the said amount was received in the account of the present applicant, immediately, the same had been transferred to some other account. The present applicant has not obtained any financial gain out of the entire transaction. However, to show his bodnafides, the applicant is ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount which had been received in his account. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the applicant has played very vital role in commission of the offence in question. It was the present applicant, who had hatched the entire conspiracy and in addition thereto, as a part of the said conspiracy, the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- had been received in the account of the present applicant. He has submitted that having regard to the compexity of the issue involved in the present offence, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant would be necessary. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Learned advocate for the original complainant has also opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the land owner Laxmiben had expired much prior to the execution of the sale-deed in question and despite the said knowledge, some other lady i.e. present accused no.4 was made to impersonate as Laxmiben i.e. the owner and the sale-deed in question came to be executed in favour of accused no.1. The case of accused no.1 was considered for grant of bail merely because he was a bonafide purchaser, whereas the role of the accused no.2 was considered by the concerned Sessions Court for grant of bail, as he had not received any amount. However, in the case of the present applicant, he had received the amount of Rs.65 lacs in his account. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. He further submits that the proposal of the applicant to deposit 50% of the amount, which had been received in his account, cannot be accepted, as even if the applicant deposits full amount of Rs.65,00,000/-, the first informant would still be duped of his land, as he would not get his v