ORAL ORDER

1. This is an application by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.I- 11219030210107 of 2021 before Saputara Police Station, Dang for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri N.D. Nanavaty with learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah appearing for the original complainant submits that the document which was executed in the year 1992 allegedly giving power to accused No.1 Kantibhai Karshanbhai Patel (since deceased) was interpolated by adding the words “also appoint substitute attorney” and therefore, the custodial interrogation to recover such document is necessary.

5. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant–accused and without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC

665.

6. Following aspects are also considered:-

I. The FIR is registered on 05.05.2021 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place from

27.01.1992 till filing of the FIR.

II. The investigation pertains to the power of attorney allegedly interpolated by adding certain words in the said power of attorney and thereafter, on the basis of such power of attorney, executed a power of attorney in favour of the applicant.

III. Submission of learned advocate for the applicant that the issue pertains to running of a hotel which was being run by the applicant as a power of attorney holder of accused No.1 who has already expired. The land on which the hotel was running was granted by the State Government on lease to one Khilanmal Basantani who is no longer living and during his lifetime had given a power of attorney to the accused No.1 to run hotel.

IV. Submission of learned advocate for the applicant that the legal heirs of the said original allottee Khilanmal Bansantani have also executed a power of attorney in favour of applicant to run the hotel.

V. Submission of learned advocate for the applicant that the complainant who claims to be the nephew and partner of deceased Khilanmal Bansantani has filed a civil suit firstly for the probate of the Will which is objected to by the legal heirs of Khilanmal Basantani and pending before the Court in Bombay. The civil suit is also filed by the complainant before the Civil Court to declare complainant to be rightful owner and occupier.

VI. Considering the dispute being civil in nature and that the complainant has already initiated proceedings unsuccessfully before the revenue authorities as well as before the Civil Court and hence, case of the applicant deserves consideration.

VII. Considering the fact that the applicant is protected vide order dated 02.06.2021.

VII. Learned APP under instructions of IO is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant.

7. Learned Advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including impositions of co