ORAL ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191002220653/2022 registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad City.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D.Nanavaty appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Rahul R. Dholakia for the Applicant, learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appaering for the Respondent – State and learned Advocate Mr.

Siddharth G. Patel appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State and learned Advocate Mr. Siddharth G. Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Original Complainant.

3. At the outset leanred Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty submits that the Applicant is ready and willing to reverse the entire transaction and restore the title in favour of the first informant after the Applicant is released on bail. by this Hon'ble Court. Learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the Applicant has as many as 32 other antecedents registered against him and it was the Applicant at whose behest the entire offence had taken place. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Siddharth G. Patel appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant has also opposed the Application and submitted that the present Applicant is the main accused on whose behest the other coaccused had forged the Power of Attorney and the land was registerd in his own name. He further submitted that there are as many as 22 other offence registered against the present Applicant. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. In view of the statment made by leanred Senior Advocate Mr. N.D.Nanavaty for the Applicant to the effect that the Applicant is ready and willing to reverse the entire alleged transaction and restore the title in favour of the first informant, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly

3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 24.3.2024.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- wit