Gujarat High Court
Hareshbhai Laljibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 13 October, 2022
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/7608/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7608 of 2022
==========================================================
HARESHBHAI LALJIBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JV VAGHELA(5809) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI(5576) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 13/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Buch on behalf of the learned Advocate Mr. J. V. Vaghela for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi on behalf of the first informant.
2. By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 1120404722008 of 2022 registered with Nadiad West Police Station, District Kheda, on 19.03.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide an order dated 20.04.2022 a learned Co-ordinate bench of Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 15 00:00:53 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/7608/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022 this Hon'ble Court had deemed it appropriate to protect the applicants from pre-arrest bail and whereas such protection has enured in favour of the present applicants till date.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Buch on behalf of the applicants would submit that the FIR is by a disgruntled seller, who after parting with the property to the family of the present applicants, had later on questioned the sale and whereas the said seller had left no stone unturned to try and harass the present applicants in order to get his land back. Learned advocate would submit that apart from filing of the Civil Suit, the said seller, had also opposed the applicants in Revenue Proceedings and whereas at the end of it all, the said seller of the property had filed the present FIR. Learned advocate insofar as the allegations in the FIR are concerned would submit that the same would relate to a document dated 20.02.2009 being an N. A. permission granted to the present applicants to run their saw-mills and whereas the said N. A. permission had been submitted before the Forest Department for getting an N.O.C. to run the saw-mill in question.
Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that while the fact of the said document being fraudulent may not be possibly denied but at the same time, it appears that the said document had been given to the present applicants by their late grandfather one Mr. Mavjibhai and whereas from the document itself it Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 15 00:00:53 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/7608/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022 appears that the same was styled as a permission given pursuant to the application given by the said late Mavjibhai. Learned advocate would further submit that the saw-mill in question being functional as on date and the officials of the Forest Department having not taken any action against the applicants and whereas considering that the alleged fraud is of the year 2009 and whereas it appears that no loss has been caused to any person and also considering that the FIR was at the behest of a disgruntled seller, this Court may release the present applicants on pre-arrest bail.
5. This application has been vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, who would submit that while the applicant may state that the document in question had not caused any loss to anybody but the fact remains that it is only on the strength of such document that the applicant could get a N.O.C. from the Forest Department and have been operating their saw-mill from the year 2009 onwards. Learned APP would submit that the fraud alleged is very serious inasmuch as a document carrying the signature and seal of a Collector i.e. a representative of the Government is forged learned APP would submit that by itself would be a good ground to state that custodial interrogation of the present applicants is necessary despite the efflux of time.
Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 15 00:00:53 IST 2022R/CR.MA/7608/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further point out the investigation papers to this Court and would submit that at the relevant point of time, the application for getting N.O.C. had been made by the present applicants on behalf of the respective firms and whereas it is nothing but a defence on part of the present applicants, which may not be considered, that the document in question had been created by their late grandfather. Having regard to such submissions, learned APP would request this Court not to exercise discretion in favour of the present applicants.
6. This application is also vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi who while adopting the submission of learned APP would independently submit that the present applicants have played a fraud on the State and whereas under such circumstances, the present applicant may not be protected by this Court.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the investigating papers as well as documents on record, the following relevant aspects are considered by this Court:
[1] The fact that the said document i.e. a purported N. A. permission being a fraudulent document not being denied by anyone.Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 15 00:00:53 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/7608/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022 [2] It appears that the said document was used in getting an N.O.C. from the Forest Department for running a saw-mill and whereas from the investigation papers it prima-facie appears that such applications for getting N.O.C. had been submitted by the present applicants on behalf of their individual firms.
[3] It also appears that while the applicants claim that such document had been created by their grandfather and whereas except the fact that the document is styled as being passed in the context of an application for N. A. permission by the said person, there is nothing on record to show that the document had been prepared by the late grandfather of the applicants.
[4] As against the same, as noted hereinabove, the investigation by the Investigating Officer has reveled that the present applicants in the year 2009 itself had obtained undue benefit on account of such fraudulent document inasmuch as N.O.C. from the Forest Department had been obtained on the strength of the said document and in absence of such documents possibly the applicants would not have been entitled to operate their saw-mill. While it is true that the saw-mills are running from the year 2009 itself and whereas the fraudulent documents also appear to be created and used in the year 2009 Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 15 00:00:53 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/7608/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022 and whereas the FIR is filed in the year 2022 but that by itself in the considered opinion of this Court would not be good ground for interfering, more particularly, since it appears that none of the concerned authorities at the relevant point of time were aware about the fraudulent nature of the document in question.
[5] Insofar as the bonafides of the first informant is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, while the present applicants may be right in contending that the present first informant may be a disgruntled seller but at the same time, the said act by itself would not dilute the fact that the document on the basis of which an N.O.C. had been obtained from the Forest Department was a fraudulent document carrying the signature and seal of the Collector of the District concerned.
8. Having regard to such observations, in the considered opinion of this Court, discretion ought not to be exercised in the present case. Hence, the application stands rejected.
9. Considering that the interim relief had been granted by the learned Co-ordinate bench in favour of the present applicants vide order dated 20.04.2022 i.e. within a month of the FIR being registered and has continued till Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 15 00:00:53 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/7608/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022 date, the request made by learned Advocate Mr. Buch for extending the interim relief appearing to be reasonable, inspite of stiff opposition from learned APP as well as learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the same till 04.11.2022.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 15 00:00:53 IST 2022