Gujarat High Court
Hemalbhai Arvindbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 176 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
HEMALBHAI ARVINDBHAI SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIT S TOLIA(2708) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PARTH S TOLIA(5617) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS VRUNDA SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 22/09/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is an application filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 22 20:50:15 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/176/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023 undefined dated 25.3.2015 passed by learned 12 th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.377 of 2015 where the learned Court below was pleased to release the Respondent No.2 on anticipatory bail in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot being I-C.R.No.57 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is contended by learned advocate for the applicant that as per the affidavit of the Investigating Officer itself, one stamp paper was purchased on 19.2.1996, which was used to forge the power of attorney, which was registered on 19.2.1992 i.e. before the date of existence of stamp paper with one Notary Shri B.P.Shukla. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that during the investigation, it is found that the signature and stamp of the said Notary, Shri B.P.Shukla is also forged and accordingly, the forged power of attorney is created. On the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney, Respondent No.2 has purchased the plot and further claiming himself to be bona-fide Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 22 20:50:15 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/176/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023 undefined purchaser. Further transaction was taken place and the said plot was sold to another accused, namely, Punamben wife of Ashwinbhai Patel vide sale-deed dated 26.7.2013. Learned advocate further submitted that learned Judge while granting regular bail had ignored the seriousness of offence by all means and release the Respondent N.2 on regular bail even prior to conclusion of the investigation. Learned Judge observed that Respondent No.2 was the alleged purchaser. However, learned Judge ignored the aspect that Power of Attorney on the basis of plot was purchased was forged and was in connivance with other accused. Learned advocate further submitted that without considering the seriousness of alleged offence, the learned Court below had released the Respondent No.2 on anticipatory bail, therefore, prays to cancel the bail, which was granted to Respondent No.2.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr.Bhavin Raiyani, submits that the alleged offence, which is reported after 18 years and applicant is lady accused and after considering the evidence, learned Court below released the Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 22 20:50:15 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/176/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023 undefined applicant on anticipatory bail vide an order dated 25.3.2015, and uptill now, there is no any breach of conditions reported, therefore, no interference is required.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties, it transpires that FIR was filed on 10.3.2015 for the offence of 27.2.1997, Respondent No.2 was purchaser. Respondent No.2 was released in the year 2015 and more than 8 years have been passed as of now and there was no any breach of conditions reported either by the learned APP or by learned advocate for the applicant.
5. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of as dismissed. Rule discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ASHISH M. GADHIYA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 22 20:50:15 IST 2023