ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed with following prayers:-

“A. Quash and set aside the order dated 09.11.2017, below Ex 14, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7136 of 2017, passed by the Ld. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, granting bail to the Respondent No.2 in connection with the FIR registered vide C.R.I 250 of 2017 with the Khatodara Police Station, Surat.

B. Pending the admission and final hearing of the present application be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the judgment and order dated 09.11.2017, below Ex 14, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7136 of 2017, passed by the Ld. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat.

2. By the aforesaid impugned order, respondent No.2, who is the original accused No.2, has been enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with offence being I-CR No.250 of 2017 registered with Khatodara Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant at the outset submitted that the basic case of the applicant is to challenge the impugned order for quashing and setting aside, but may not be for the purpose of cancelling the bail and to substantiate his ground to quash the order, he submitted that the Sessions Court has recorded contradictory stand of learned APP appearing before the Sessions Court. He drew attention of this Court to the impugned order, particularly to paras-6 and 8 stating that the learned APP had submitted that custodial interrogation of respondent No.2 herein /accused is necessary and hence, the Sessions Court in para-8 has recorded that say of learned APP is that if the applicants /accused are ready to cooperate in the investigation, their physical presence in the police custody is not to be necessary…..”. It is this recording of two contradictory facts, has made the order venerable.

3.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has thereafter submitted that the manner in which the offence was committed when a document placed before the Court in civil proceedings was found to be not genuine document, but a bogus and concocted document which did not bear signature of the complainant side. It is submitted that such document, even on date, is not recovered.

3.2 No further arguments have been advanced for cancellation of bail. However, reference is made to the three decisions of the Apex Court, viz. (i) in case of Jayaben Vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr., reported in 2022 Live Law (SC), 29, (ii) in case of Hariram Bhambhi Vs. Satyanarayan & Anr., reported in AIR 2021 SC, 5610 and (iii) in case of Prem Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 12 SCC, 20.

4. As against this, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that the order granting anticipatory bail has provided for all necessary conditions in support of the investigation and accordingly, respondent No.2 has cooperated with the investigation and thereafter, even charge sheet is now filed.

4.1 It is submitted that the root cause for registration of the FIR is the property dispute which is civil in nature and only with a view to attach criminality method that the FIR has been registered and hence, the Sessions Court has exercised discretion in favour of respondent No.2.

4.2 It is submitted that the applicant targeting respondent No.2 is evident as cancellation of bail application is filed only against present respondent No.2, whereas qua other accused persons, who has been enlarged, the applicant has not initiated any action.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the FIR came to be registered on account of the order passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.4749 of 2017 directing compliance of decision of the Apex Court in case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC, 1.

6. The gist for filing the FIR is as under:-

“Thus, the above noted accused, i.e. (1) Manoj Has