Motuben Wd/O Ramaji Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 19 July, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Motuben Wd/O Ramaji Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 19 July, 2021

Bench: A.S. Supehia

          R/CR.MA/7455/2021                           ORDERDATED:19/07/2021



                 IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
                  R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 7455of 2021
                                    With
                  R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 9450of 2021
                                    With
                  R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 9427of 2021
==============================================================================

MOTUBENWD/ORAMAJISOLANKI Versus STATEOF GUJARAT ============================================================================== Appearance:

MRR N KAPADIA(11245)for the Applicant(s)No. 1,2 MRRJ GOSWAMI(1102)for the Applicant(s)No. 1,2 MRMBRANA(2760)for the Respondent(s)No. 1 MS.MOXATHAKKER,APPfor the Respondent(s)No. 1 ============================================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date: 19/07/2021 COMMONORALORDER [1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.

[2] By way of the present applications filed 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.I- 11195019210199 of 2021 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences under Sections 4(3), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(e) of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.

[3] Learned advocates for the applicants have submitted that on instigation of the accused nos.6 and 7, accused nos. 1 to 5 have, in collusion with each other, forcefully grabbed the agricultural land of the first informant bearing old Revenue Survey No.42 paiki 1 admeasuring 1-42-65 (Hector-Aare-Sq.Mt.), which was culminated into New Survey No.439 after revision of survey and the same is, after new measurement, admeasuring 1-68-13 (Hextor-Aare-Sq.Mt.) of Moje Rasana Nana, Tal Deesa, Dist.- Banasakantha.The role attributed to the applicants is of instigating or encouraging the accused nos. 1 to 5.

Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 16:41:55 IST 2021

R/CR.MA/7455/2021 ORDERDATED:19/07/2021 [3.1] It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the aforesaid land again came to be transferred by execution of a registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.2016 from Rajeshkumar Chandulal Ghanchi to Mukunray Chandulal Mehta i.e. the first informant, registered on 08.02.2016. It is further submitted that looking to the nature of allegations, for which custodial interrogation of the applicants at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicants will keep available during the course of investigation, as well as in the trial also and will not flee from justice.

[4] Learned advocates for the applicants, upon instructions, have submitted that the applicants will not be claimed any ownership of the concerned land, without prejudice to the rights and contentions before the Civil Court. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for their remand. It is further submitted that, upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicants accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocates, therefore, have submitted that considering the above facts, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

[5] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[6] Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

[7] This Court has considered the following aspects;

(a) The role of the applicants;

(b) As on today, possession of the land is with the original owner;

Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 16:41:55 IST 2021

R/CR.MA/7455/2021 ORDERDATED:19/07/2021

(c) Considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary.

[8] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 312.

[9] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-11195019210199 of 2021 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha on their executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) EACH with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that they:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 28.07.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the addresses to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change their residences till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passports shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week.

[10] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants, if he considers it proper and just and the Magistrate would Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 16:41:55 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/7455/2021 ORDERDATED:19/07/2021 decide it on merits. The applicants shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the concerned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

[11] At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

[12] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority / court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

[13] Learned advocates for the applicants are also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

(A. S. SUPEHIA,J) NABILA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 16:41:55 IST 2021

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court