Gujarat High Court
Lataben D/O Natwarbhai Goplabhai Ahir & ... vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2017
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
R/CR.MA/22600/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 22600 of 2017
==========================================================
LATABEN D/O NATWARBHAI GOPLABHAI AHIR & W/O GIRISHBHAI
JUVANSINH BARIA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TULSHI R SAVANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SS PATHAK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 22/09/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an application for regular bail in connection with the offence registered as I-C.R. No. 65/2017 with Olpad Police Station under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant, who is the paternal uncle of the present applicant, lodged the aforesaid FIR against the applicant and her sisters and her mother inter alia alleging that his brother was mentally instable and he had severed ties with his wife nearly before 35 years and his brother continued to reside with them at Kumbhariya village. He was being looked after by the first informant. However, in the year 2006, in the month of 07.08.2006, due to flood situation at village Kumbhariya, the father of the applicant, Natvarbhai, went missing.
Page 1 of 6
HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Mon Sep 25 03:26:40 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/22600/2017 ORDER
Such an information has been given to the police after 8 years, I.e. on 08.07.2014.
3. On receipt of the notice under Section 135D on 03.08.2016, at the instance of the present applicant and her sisters, the objections had been raised before Mamlatdar, Olpad. The revenue proceedings have continued. On procuring the documents, it was realized that the death certificate reflected his death on 21.04.2006. It was also relaized that Natvarbhai Gopalbhai Ahir's death was shown at SMC, Surat, in the pedigree submitted before the revenue authority, whereas, in the death of certificate, he is shown to have expired at the residence at Surat. The complaint, therefore, has been given against the present applicant and others. The investigation has continued. In the meantime, the applicant had moved an application for regular bail before the competent Court, which is not accepted, and therefore, she is before this Court.
4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Savani, appearing for the applicant has submitted that the sisters of the present applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by the competent Court, whereas, the mother of the applicant has been granted regular bail. They all are similarly situated persons, and therefore, the applicant cannot be denied regular bail. He, further, urged that it is the case of the Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Mon Sep 25 03:26:40 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/22600/2017 ORDER applicant, from the beginning, that her cousin had handed over said death certificate to her, disclosing death of her father and it is only on the ground of the apprehension of their losing their land, which, otherwise, would come to the share of the applicant, they have belatedly filed the complaint, during the pendency of the revenue proceedings. He also, further, urged that investigation is nearly over and keeping her in jail would not sub-serve the purpose. As such the entire case is based pre-dominantly based on the documentary evidences.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly objected to the same on the ground that the investigation has continued and the applicant is the person, at whose instance, the false pedigree had been made. She is the one, who had tendered the death certificate, which is prima facie found to be bogus. She, therefore, urged that merely because she is a woman, she should not be given the benefit of regular bail.
6. Heard learned Advocates on both the sides. It is a matter of record that the father of the present applicant, Natvarbhai, had matrimonial disputes with the mother of the applicant and due to disputes between her parents, the applicant and her sister lived with their mother, who separated from her husband socially before about 35 years.
Page 3 of 6
HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Mon Sep 25 03:26:40 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/22600/2017 ORDER
The father of the applicant, therefore, continued to live with the family of his brother, i.e. family of the first informant, and he was found to be missing from the year 2006. He has his share in the ancestral / joint family property. The missing entry of his is disclosed, for the first time, in the year 2014. It is not explained anywhere in the complaint as to why, for a person missing since the year 2006, the revelation before the authority is made in the year 2014.
7. Be that as it may, it emerges that a notice under Section 135D of the Land Revenue Code was received by the family members of the complainant and that had set the ball rolling. There are revenue proceedings pending before the competent authority, where the death certificate, which had been produced by the applicant and her siblings, is emerging to be incorrect. It is, though, the defence that one of the cousins had handed over the certificate to the applicant and her siblings to initiate the proceedings. Without entering into those details, the tenor of the complaint and the long drawn disputes of the family members when are examined, this Court is of the opinion that this case essentially and predominantly is based on the documentary evidence, the tempering of the same is not feasible and the trial is likely to take a long time, and therefore, her further incarceration would not be necessary.
Page 4 of 6
HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Mon Sep 25 03:26:40 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/22600/2017 ORDER
8. Resultantly, this application is ALLOWED. The applicant is ordered to be RELEASED on regular bail on his furnishing a solvent surety of Rs.25,000/- with another surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned and on conditions that the applicant shall:
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week from today;
(d) not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court concerned;
(e) regularly attend Court proceedings;
(f) furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the trial Court concerned at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
(g) shall NOT DEAL with the land in question till the completion of the trial.Page 5 of 6
HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Mon Sep 25 03:26:40 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/22600/2017 ORDER
9. Indulgence / involvement in any other offence shall entitle the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail.
10. The Authorities will release the applicant only if not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
11. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter, including of cancellation of bail.
12. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case.
13. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is Permitted.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) UMESH Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Mon Sep 25 03:26:40 IST 2017