An accused is entitled to bail if their further custody is not necessary for investigation, they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail, and the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future.

ORDER

1. This successive bail application is filed by the lady accused Dholiben Badalbhai Baria, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., filed in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.118210352002291 of 2020, registered with Limkheda Police Station, Dist: Dahod for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of present application is that, the applicant and co-accused Savitaben Damor in connivance with each other, committed an offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery for the purpose of cheating. It is alleged that, the complainant derived right, title and interest by way of will with respect to land bearing survey no.34/1 situated at Village:

Limkheda. It is further alleged that the co-accused with intention to defraud the complainant, produced bogus death certificate of one Rameshbhai who was the co- owner of the land who died on 25.11.2010. It is further alleged that, based on the death certificate of the deceased Rameshbhai, false and bogus affidavit being submitted to the Revenue Authority and accused have claimed their right over the disputed property and accordingly, the name of the husband of the present applicant-accused namely Badalbhai had been mutated.

It is in this context, it is alleged that, without any right, title or interest, the accused have committed an offence as alleged in the FIR.

3. This Court has heard Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Vijal P. Desai, learned counsel for the original complainant and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the applicant would submits that, co-accused Savitaben being lawful owner of the land, sold it to husband of the present applicant namely Badalbhai by way of registered sale-deed alleged to have been executed on 08.06.2017 and thereafter, name of Badalbhai having been mutated in the revenue records. He would further submits that, after death of Badalbhai, the name of present applicant being legal heir of the deceased, has been mutated in revenue records. In such circumstances, it is submitted that, there is no any intention on the part of the applicant to cheat the complainant, nor, have played any active role in the alleged offence. He would further submits that, the entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence and there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

5. In the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Mankad learned counsel for the applicant submits that, technically it is not possible for the applicant to reverse the transaction and therefore, she could not complied with the terms and conditions of the undertaking submitted by her before this Court. In such circumstances, he submitted that, the further custody of the applicant is not necessary and applicant is permanent resident of Village: Limkheda and trial would take considerable time. Thus, he prays that, the discretion may kindly be exercised.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Vijal Desai for the original complainant and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-State, reiterating the contents of affidavit of complainant, submitted that, there is a reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offence. The applicant herein forged the death certificate of deceased Rameshbhai so as to enable her to change the entry in revenue records. It is submitted that, the applicant having five antecedents of like nature and therefore, there is likelihood of the offence being repeated, if bail is granted. It is submitted that, the applicant herein agreed to handover the possession of the land to the complainant, for which, she had been granted temporary bail. Despite this fact, she did not comply the condition of the undertaking which factors disentitle her