Gujarat High Court
Umeshbhai Jayantilal Mody vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO.5260 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO.5377 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? YES
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made NO
thereunder ?
================================================================
UMESHBHAI JAYANTILAL MODY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
In Criminal Misc. Application No.5260 of 2022
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE for
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant
MR R.S.SANJANWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the original complainant
In Criminal Misc. Application No.5377 of 2022
MR N.K. MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant
MR.L.B.DABHI, APP for the Respondent State
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 29/04/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11196039220102 of 2022 registered with Nandesari Police Page 1 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 Station, District Vadodara for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") against the present applicants and another accused. The accused No.1 - Umeshbhai Jayantibhai Mody, is the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5260 of 2022, accused No.2 - Kanubhai Fulabhai Parmar, is the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5377 of 2022.
2. The first informant - Jitendrabhai Jayantibhai Mody is the real brother of the applicant - accused No.1 - Umeshbhai Jayntibhai Mody. The allegations made in the FIR, in nutshell are that the accused No.1 had transferred a Plot No.124 of 2019 situated at Nandesari Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short 'GIDC') in his name through accused No.2 - Kanubhai Fulabhai Parmar, who is running a consultancy firm namely R.K.Associates by creating forged pedigree and forged documents.
3. On rejection of the applications seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") by the Trial Court, the captioned applications are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta, appearing for the accused No.1 - Umeshbhai Jayntibhai Mody, has submitted that there was no need for forging the documents for transferring the plot No.124 of 2019 situated at Nandesari GIDC, since it was already transferred to him in the year 1988 and he has been doing his business on the said plot since then. He has referred to various documents and communications entered with the GIDC in this regard, from 07.06.1988 onwards Page 2 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 for transfer of the aforesaid plot. It is further submitted by him that in fact there were exchange of notices and replies between the applicant and the first informant with regard to the transfer of the aforesaid plot.
4.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta, has further submitted that the plot was already provisionally transferred in the name of the applicant - accused No.1, and for actual transfer plot in his name, he hired accused No.2 for undertaking the necessary exercise. While referring to the application, which was filed by the accused No.2, who is running a consultancy firm, he has submitted that in fact, the applicant name in such application is filled as Kanu Rajesh Parmar i.e. the accused No.2 and the transferer is one J.J.Mody, who is the father of the applicant who has expired in 2015. He has further submitted that accordingly, on the basis of forged documents, which were prepared by the accused No.2, the plot was transferred in the name of the applicant - accused No.1. It is further submitted that his signature and the documents in fact are forged by the accused No.2. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta that the applicant - accused No.1 has already filed an affidavit-cum- undertaking dated 20.04.2022, showing his willingness to reverse the transfer of Plot No.124 of 2019. It is further submitted that there are no antecedents of the applicant - accused No.1 and he is aged about 70 years old and custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Asim Niranjan Chakraborty Vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 (1) GCD 328 and Bharatbhai Jayantilal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 Page 3 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 (30) GHJ 122 and finally on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312. Thus, it is urged by learned Senior Advocate that custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary.
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing for the accused no.2, the applicant of captioned Criminal Misc. Application No.5377 of 2022 has submitted that all the documents were given by the accused no.1 to him, and treating the same as genuine he had applied for the transfer of the plot. He has submitted that the applicant no.2 was only acting as an agent for getting the plot transfer in the name of the applicant no.1 by applying on behalf of the accused no.1. He has thus submitted that the accused no.1 is the person who has forged the documents and not the accused no.2.
6. Opposing the aforesaid applications, learned Senior Advocate Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala appearing for the first informant has submitted that the accused No.1 has got the plot No.124 of 2019 transferring it in his name through the forged documents. He has submitted that ultimate beneficiary is the accused No.1 and the accused Nos.2 and 3 have connived with each other in forging the revenue records. It is submitted that in fact the plot is situated in the GIDC and such a transfer could not have been made since right from the beginning, the father of the accused No.1 and the first informant was not willing to transfer the said plot in the name of the applicant - accused No.1. It is submitted that the late father of the applicant and the first informant had written to GIDC not to transfer the plot to applicant without his permission. It is Page 4 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 submitted that the accused no.1 and accused no.2 are blaming each other for forgery, hence the custodial interrogation is necessary as to ascertaining the truth and hence, the present applications may not be entertained.
6.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala has also submitted that merely because the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5260 of 2022 has shown his willingness to get the plot re-transfer or reverse the entire transactions, the same will not dilute the seriousness of the offence. He has submitted that despite the issuance of the Rule by this Court and after the judgment of the trial court, substantial time has lapsed but no efforts are actually made by the applicant - accused No.1 to show his bona fide. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Aftaf Abdul Latif Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 SCC Online Bombay 1590. It is thus urged that looking to the seriousness of the offence, the applications may not be entertained.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions of the investigating officer, who is present before this Court, while referring to the report and affidavit filed before the Trial Court, has submitted that the investigation reveals that all the accused have connived with each other to prepare the forged documents. It is submitted by him that the accused have also forged the revenue records.
7.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that after all the documents were prepared by the accused, the accused No.1 appeared before the Sub-
Page 5 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 Registrar's Office on 27.06.2019 and in front of two witnesses and the Regional Manager of GIDC and after his photograph was taken, the plot was transferred in the name of accused no.1. It is thus, submitted by the learned APP that the accused No.1 cannot contend that the accused Nos.2 and 3 have, in fact, connived with each other and have forged the documents. It submitted by him that the accused No.1 is the ultimate beneficiary of the forged documents since the plot is transferred in his name. It is submitted that the witnesses- Talati, has asserted that his signature and seal have been faked for preparing the forged pedigree.
7.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that before the trial court a specific contention has been raised by all the accused blaming each other for the offence. It is submitted that initially, the first application was filed by the accused No.2 before the GIDC and the plot, which is sought to be transferred being plot No.124 of 2019, does not in any manner belong to the accused No.1 and the GIDC is the owner which has given the plot on lease to the father of the applicant. It is thus, submitted that even if it is assumed that the accused No.1 was doing his business since 1988 on the same plot, but in fact, the investigation reveals that the plot was never transferred in his name and it was only transferred on the basis of the forged documents executed by the accused No.1, in connivance with other accused.
8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to the lis. I have also perused the papers of the investigation.
Page 6 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022
9. The allegations referred hereinabove in the FIR are with regard to the transfer of the plot No.124 of 2019 situated at the GIDC in the name of the accused No.1 by executing the same on the basis of the forged documents. The documents pertaining to the revenue record are also forged. A forge consent letter is prepared by forging the signatures of the sisters. The signatures of the sisters of the first informant and the applicant are forged. One of the sister is who is suffering from paralysis since 1992, her signatures are also forged. A false pedigree is prepared in which the age of the sisters is altered. The identity proofs such as Aadhar Card, Pan Card etc. are also forged. In all the documents such as Undertaking, Draft Undertaking by transferor, deed of assignment, supplementary assignment and relevant forms, the signature of the first informant and his sisters are forged. The pedigree is prepared by forging the signature and seal of Talati. The original forged documents are yet to be recovered. It is not the case that the there was an absolute ownership of the plot by the father of the first informant or the applicant. It belonged to GIDC and was given on lease. The same could not have been transferred after following the procedure as prescribed by the GIDC. The papers of the investigation reveal that after such documents were prepared, the accused No.1 had personally singed the same before the Sub-Registrar Office and he has remained present with two witnesses on 27.06.2017 and the got the plot transferred in his name. Ultimately, the accused No.1 is the beneficiary of the plot No.124 of 2019 and the papers of the investigation also reveal that the application for such transfer was prepared and filed by the accused No.2 and the accused No.3, who is a notary has notarized the same. As on today, before this Court and before the trial court the Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 accused no.1 and 2 are blaming each other for the offence. Merely because, the applicant has been using the plot since 1988, the same will not absolve him from the criminal offence since he is the ultimate beneficiary of such illegal transfer. If it is the case of the accused no.1 that the accused no.2 has forged all the documents, then it was expected from the accused No.1 to immediately reverse all the transactions when it was found that the transfer of the plots was premised on the basis of the forged documents. Instead of that, the accused have started blaming each other for forgery. Though, the respective applicants have tried to make out their case with regard to the ownership of the plot in question, this Court cannot in the present proceedings venture into the grey area and opine anything with regard to the actual ownership or usage of the concerned plot. The forgery of the official documents and revenue records can be said to be very serious in nature.
10. The judgements on which the reliance is placed by the applicant-accused no.1 will not come to his rescue since in the case of Asim Niranjan Chakraborty (supra), the coordinate bench was examining the case of the accused no.1-Collector against whom the main allegations were made was arrested and his bail application seeking regular bail was rejected. The role of the concerned applicant was not serious and he was released since it was found that the entire investigation was over. In case of Bharatbhai Jayantilal Shah (supra), the concerned accused was released for the reason that there were civil disputes going on between the accused and the complainant and the complaint has been filed after about one year. This Court is also conscious of the parameters prescribed Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/5260/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra). As noticed herein above, the investigation is not yet over. The documents are yet to be recovered, and in all probabilities there is likelihood of tempering with the evidence by the accused.
11. Under the circumstances and in light of the aforesaid facts, the captioned applications fail and the same are rejected accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
12. Registry place copy of this judgment in the connected file.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) MAHESH BHATI/87 & 116 Page 9 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 30 20:43:57 IST 2022