ORDER :

Utkarsh Thakorbhai Desai, J.

1. The applicant who is the original complainant has preferred the present application under Sections 482 and 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for cancellation of anticipatory bail, which was granted to the respondent No.2 – accused vide order dated 09.04.2025, passed by the 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in CRMA No.1052 of 2025 in connection with the FIR bearing No.11191006250079 of 2025 dated 23.03.2025, lodged with Bodakdev Police Station, Ahmedabad.

2. The applicant by way of his application has submitted that, the learned Additional Sessions Court Ahmedabad (rural) has committed a grave error in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused, overlooking the serious nature of offences involving forgery, cheating and misrepresentation, committed by the accused. The impugned order dated 09.04.2025, passed in CRMA No.1052 of 2025, has failed to adequately appreciate the prima facie evidence on record, demonstrating systematic fraud committed by the respondent No.2 – accused including, deliberate forgery of agriculturist certificates and misuse of a false identity. It is further mentioned that, the accused deliberately forged agriculturist certificates and fraudulently represented himself as a legitimate agriculturist. The same is held to be false and forged, vide order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Collector, Mahesana and order dated 27.06.2022, passed by the Deputy Collector, Kadi. As per the say of the applicant, such forgery clearly attracts Sections 336 and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 however, these Sections had not been added by the Investigating Officer, indicating inadequacies in the ongoing investigation. It is also mentioned that, because of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused being prejudicial to the interest of justice, as the investigation is at a nascent and a critical stage, custodial interrogation of the accused is essential for uncovering the full extent of his fraudulent conduct, including identifying other potentially involved parties, recovering crucial evidence, and preventing tempering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. It is also mentioned that, because of the accused’s deliberate conduct of misrepresentation and forgery, there is strong likelihood of further interference with the investigated process, influencing witnesses and destruction or manipulation of documentary evidence. Hence, the applicant has prayed to allow the present application and cancel the anticipatory bail, which has been granted to the respondent No.2 – accused by the 6^th Additional Sessions Court of Ahmedabad (Rural), vide order dated 09.04.2025, passed in CRMA No.1052 of 2025.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prithu Parimal for the applicant, who has reiterated the averments of the application. Mr. Parimal has also placed on record the additional affidavit on behalf of the applicant, together with other relevant documents. Mr. Parimal has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. V. N. Bhamare for the respondent No.2 – accused, who has strongly opposed this application submitting that, the respondent No.2 – accused has cooperated with the investigation. He has also submitted his signatures for examination by the FSL. It is not proved that, the partnership firm had given any money to the respondent No.2 – accused to purchase the land in question. Mr. Bhamare has also invited the attention of this Court to the partnership deed which is placed on record, and has specifically submitted that, in the partnership deed itself it is not mentioned that, the accused had purchased land from the money of the firm. Mr. Bhamare has further submitted that, the amount towards the sale of land was paid by the accused, and if at all the partnership firm had paid some money, they can recover the same from the