Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-238 of 2019 registered with Sector 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465,466, 467, 471, 114 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is stated in the FIR that the applicant is one of the trustees of Prabhat Education Trust and the trust has entered into one rent agreement dated 26.6.2015 stating the common plot area has been taken on lease for the purpose of providing ground for the kids to play and on the basis of the same, the permission dated 22.2.2016 was granted. It is further stated that on inquiry, it was found that it was written as ownership plot and on physical verification of the place, a shopping centre was found to be constructed. It is stated that on further inquiry, it was found R/CR.MA/2766/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021 that though the agreement was cancelled on 15.10.2016, the forged agreement was produced on 9.10.2017 for obtaining the permission. Accordingly, the said FIR came to be lodged.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Oza for the original complainant has referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by Assistant Secretary of Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, copy of which is placed on record at page no.61, and after referring to the said affidavit, it is submitted that the applicant is an active Trustee of Prabhat Education and Charitable Trust. The trust has applied for opening new Secondary School (English Medium) to the complainant Board. Along with the same, rent agreement dated 26.6.2015 executed between Mr.Chandrakant Babubhai and the applicant was produced. It was revealed that the plot mentioned therein was common plot and rented for the purpose of playground, however, thereafter, on the non-judicial stamp paper with the same serial number, forged document was produced wherein the plot is shown as of the ownership of the Trust. It is further submitted that during the spot inspection, certain irregularities were found and by producing forged document, the applicant has obtained the permission from the complainant board. It is, therefore, urged that looking to the facts of the present case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the co-accused who are enlarged on anticipatory bail are different and therefore it is not open for the applicant to claim parity with the said co- accused. It is, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed.