ORAL ORDER

RULE

. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant – accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11191012210369/2021 registered with Danilimda Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the IPC.

2. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly argued that the applicant is an innocent person and, from the plain reading of the FIR of the complainant, it appears that the complainant has allegedly purchased the land in question in the year 2005. As per her say, she had visited her land in the year of 2019 i.e., after 14 years. The parties having filed a civil suit against each other, the present dispute is also of civil in nature, and the possession of the property is with the applicant. Earlier, a complaint was filed at Danilimda Police Station in the year 2019, wherein the investigation was carried out and the statement of the applicant was recorded, and finally, police disposed of the application finding no criminal offence.

2.1. The learned advocate for the applicant has stated that the applicant has purchased the land in question by following proper procedure, and a sale deed was also executed. The applicant had subsequently purchased the said plots, and in the earlier transactions, the applicant was not a party. The applicant has not created any bogus documents or forged any signatures, therefore, the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Per contra, the Learned APP has argued that there are ten past antecedents against the present applicant, and therefore on that ground alone, the present application is required to be rejected. Moreover, during the investigation, it has been found that the present applicant is not the owner of the property and has forged a fraudulent, notarized sale agreement stating it was executed by one Lallubhai. The applicant has illegally occupied the premises, and the custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate the forged sale agreement. There are ten antecedents against the applicant which are as follows;

Therefore the application is required to be rejected.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and considered the material placed on record. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii ) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Tho