Gujarat High Court
Mahijibhai Melabhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2022
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20289 of 2021
==========================================================
MAHIJIBHAI MELABHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHDSHAFI SHAIKH(6544) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 09/09/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sandip M. Patel for the applicant and learned APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi for the respondent-State.
2. The applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with the FIR being C. R. No. 11197005210333 of 2021 registered with the Vadodara Taluka Police Station, Vadodara Rural on 18.03.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 474, 404, 196, 193, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this application praying for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel on behalf of the applicant would Page 1 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022 submit that the allegation in the FIR being that the applicant had impersonated one Mahijibhai and given an application for getting the compensation amount with regard to a land which had been acquired for the high speed Rail project at village Sherkhi is absolutely false. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that as a matter of fact the applicant was the same Mahijibhai and whereas he was owner of the land in question and whereas the first informant, was himself an impersonator who did not have any right title or interest over the land in question. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that the applicant had in fact preferred a complaint before the learned Magistrate, Vadodara and whereas vide an order dated 21.05.2022, the learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara had directed registration of the said complaint as a private complaint and the matter has been kept for verification of the complainant. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that the applicant had inter alia questioned the interest of the first informant party over the land in question by way of the said criminal complaint.
3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would also draw the attention of this Court to a Suit being regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 2020 filed before the learned Civil Court, Vadodara by the present applicant and whereas it is submitted that the applicant as plaintiff in the Suit, had inter alia Page 2 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022 sought for a declaration that Will in favour of one Madhuben, widow of Raisingbhai Chaturbhai Solanki, was fabricated and forged and whereas, it was also prayed that one Rameshbhai Bhagwanbhai Solanki i.e. the first informant, also be declared as not having any right title or interest in the property in question. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that the applicant having initiated the said proceedings and the applicant is trying to establish the fact that he himself is Mahijibhai Solanki therefore, this Court may consider the application of the present applicant and not subject the present applicant to pre-arrest bail.
4. As against the same, learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that the present applicant is an impersonator, and whereas, he is not Mahijibhai Melabhai Solanki, who was the owner of the land, is an aspect which is revealed beyond doubt in the investigation. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that as a matter of fact statements of one Chhatrasingh Pahadsingh Solanki and other persons, who were neighbors of the land in question at village Sherkhi, had been recorded by the Investigating Officer and whereas, such neighbors have clearly stated that the owner of the said parcel of land being one Mahiji Melabhai Solanki, had expired somewhere in the year 1991 and whereas it is also mentioned that the said persons, had also attended the funeral rights of the said Mahijibhai. Page 3 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022 4.1. It also appears that as far as the present applicant is concerned, one Maheshbhai Narendrabhai Solanki, who was a land broker inter alia in his statement has revealed that while he had met the present applicant near one Jalaram temple, the applicant, residing near the said temple. It also appears that the said witness in his statement has mentioned that the applicant had been told by one Mr. Sanjay Ranchhodbhai Vasava, also an accused that there a land situated at village Sherkhi, the present land in question, in which substantial compensation has been awarded since the land has been acquired and whereas the owner of the land is no more and whereas he did not have any legal heirs also. The said Maheshbhai at that time is stated to have suggested to his co-accused, to use the present applicant who was similarly named as the owner of the land for getting the compensation in question. It appears that for the purpose of getting the compensation, Adhar Card, Election Card and other documents had been prepared and whereas, one co-accused since deceased, Javed Biliyani had helped in preparation of the said documents.
4.2. It also appears that the said accused along with the present applicant had got statement from the secretary of Sherkhi Gram Panchayat and whereas along with all these documents knowing very well that the present applicant was not the owner of the land in question, Page 4 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022 the application had been made for getting the compensation amount. It also appears that other person named in the statement of Maheshbhai i.e. Sanjaybhai Ranchhodbhai Vasava, also confirms what has been stated by the said Maheshbhai. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would further submit that as such all the documents, produced by the applicant for getting the compensation amount i.e. the driving license, Adhar card, Pan card and Bank details all of which, have turned out to be showing various addresses where the present applicant was not residing. A specific example has been stated by learned APP Mr. Dabhi as regards the Adhar card of the present applicant which was obtained stating the address of the applicant as residing at B-63, Jalaram Society, Undera, Baroda and whereas, it appears that statement of owner of the property Jigneshbhai Ganapatbhai had been recorded by the Investigating Officer, who denies that he had ever given such property on rent to the present applicant.
4.3. Having regard to such material, learned APP Mr. Dabhi would also draw the attention of this Court to statement of the present applicant. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that such statement having been recorded on 07.09.2022 after this Court had protected the present applicant. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that at that stage, it was open for the applicant to have come out clean before the Investigating Officer, more particularly, in view of statements of co- Page 5 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022 accused, who have inter alia admitted that they had propped up the present applicant as being the owner of the land in question to get the compensation. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that in spite of the such a opportunity, the present applicant, had maintained that he was the original Mahijibhai Solanki in spite of the fact that it prima facie appears that the owner of the land Mahijibhai had expired in the year 1991. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that having regard to such circumstances, this Court may not protect the present applicant by granting him pre-arrest bail, more particularly, learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that custodial interrogation of the applicant without protection, would be the only way in which, appropriate relevant information could be elicited from the present applicant.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, and perused the investigation papers in detail while this Court does not intend to examine the material and evidence in detail, suffice it to state that the following aspects have been considered by this Court.
[1] It appears that while the present applicant claims to be owner of the land bearing Survey No. 92 Village Sherkhi whereas, it appears that neighbors of the said land, have in their statements, clearly mentioned that the present applicant was not the same Page 6 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022 Mahijibhai Melabhai Solanki i.e. the owner of the land in question and whereas, three of the neighbors whose statements have been recorded have stated that the original owner of the land had expired and whereas the said neighbors had also attended the funeral rites of the said person.
[2] It also appears that the Investigating Officer had recovered a death certificate of the original Mahijibhai, who is stated to have expired in the year 1991.
[3] It also appears that co-accused, have in their statements, more particularly, such co-accused, who were instrumental in bringing the present applicant into the conspiracy, have admitted that it is at the behest of the co-accused that the present applicant had agreed to impersonate the deceased Mahijibhai Solanki and whereas such co-accused also admitting that all the identity details, having been prepared at their behest.
[4] It also appears that the address given by the present applicant to get the identity cards etc., including Adhar card, Driving license, Pan card etc., are all obtained giving addresses where the present applicant was not staying and he is not staying. [5] Insofar as the legal proceedings initiated by the present applicant, it appears that while the present applicant is aged Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022 around 76 years, the legal proceedings had been initiated somewhere around the year 2020, after the compensation amount had been deposited and whereas it does not appear that prior thereto, the present applicant had initiated any proceedings with regard to the land in question.
[6] It also appears that having appeared before the Investigating Officer, the present applicant has given a statement, which is completely contrary to the statement given by co-accused, who had along with the present applicant conspired to get compensation amount by impersonating the said deceased Mahijibhai Melabhai Solanki.
6. Having regard to the said factors, it appears to this Court that the submission made by learned APP Mr. Dabhi deserves consideration in as much as custodial interrogation of the applicant without any protection of this Court is required to elicited appropriate information with regard to the controversy in question. In the considered opinion of this application cannot be considered, hence, the present application is rejected. It is clarified that At the stage of trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20289/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022 applicant for being released on anticipatory bail.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Mrs. J. J. Kedia Page 9 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 13 20:35:14 IST 2022