Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy; the court must prioritize the existence of a prima facie case over the perceived lack of necessity for custodial interrogation, ensuring a balance between individual liberty and the interests of the investigation in cases involving serious allegations.

COMMON JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIRs being C.R. No.11204068250470 of 2025, C.R. No.11204068250451 of 2025 and C.R. No.11204068250469 of 2025 registered with Vadtal Police Station, District: Kheda, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNS”). As the revenue survey numbers of the lands are different, three different FIRs against the applicants have been filed.

3. As per the allegations made in the FIRs, which are filed by the power of attorney holder of the original owners against 25 accused, it is alleged that the original owners of the land are residing in the United States of America (USA). When one of the land owners came to India, she, along with the power of attorney holder and two other persons, went to the subject land on 21.07.2024 and found that the applicants were on the subject land and, when he was asked to vacate the subject land, the applicants abused, insulted and threatened them by showing dharia and sticks and asked them not to visit again, otherwise they would face dire consequences. Thereafter, the land owner executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the complainant and, upon a written complaint being given by the power of attorney holder to the competent authority under the Land Grabbing Act, the impugned FIRs came to be registered, wherein, except the 23 applicants who are before this Court, the other accused were arrested and were sent to custody. The present applicants are seeking anticipatory bail by way of the present application.

4. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta with learned advocate Mr. Popatji Solanki for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. P.R.Abhichandani for the respondent and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent-State.

5. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta appearing with the learned advocate Mr. Popatji Solanki that the impugned FIRs are lodged after a considerable delay and the present applicants are in possession of the subject land since the last 100 years. It is submitted that the ancestors of the applicants, namely Dahyabhai Motibhai and Harmanbhai Motibhai, have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and occupation of the subject land. Form Nos. 6 as well as 7/12 reflecting the names of the ancestors were produced before the competent authority under the Land Grabbing Act, however, the authority ordered registration of the FIR by ignoring the said material facts.

6. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Satta that, from the time of their forefathers, the applicants are permanent residents of Bhumel village and have constructed houses and wells on the subject land and are also paying electricity bills and tax bills to the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Satta that, on or around 13.06.2024, Sapnaben Mayurbhai Patel, who is the owner of the land, came to the subject land and tried to dispossess the applicants by claiming ownership of the land. Immediately thereafter, on 14.