R/CR.MA/8846/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8846 of 2025 ========================================================== TEJPALSINH DOLATSINH JADEJA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: DHARAMVEERSINH J SOLANKI(7481) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 05/05/2025 ORAL ORDER RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. [1.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11188003250106 of 2025 registered with Bhiloda Police Station, Dist. Aravalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. [2.0] Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence. The applicants have no past antecedents. They are not named in FIR. Dispute is civil in nature and for that civil proceedings are already pending. The applicants are the legal heirs of deceased Mulsinh Becharsinh Jadeja and have acted in good faith and under a mutual family understanding by legal heirs of late Mulsinh signed in the release deed as all the heirs had willingly participated and the applicants have no reason to doubt on the legality and validity of the deed. Alleged dispute arose in connection with to relinquish the right from the ancestral property and in this regard, one partition deed has already been filed in the R/CR.MA/8846/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 year 2008. Applicants are ready to join the investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicants are available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. [3.0] 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. He has submitted that the investigation is at initial stage. The applicants in connivance with each other forged documents and relinquished right in their favour and produced before the authority and got mutated entries in their favour. And thereby, duped legitimate right of the deceased. Both the deceased were expired prior to 2017-18 and subsequently, stamp was purchased by accused No.1 and thereafter, got entered their names in the revenue record. Considering the conduct of the applicants, prima facie offence is made out. Therefore, to unearth truth, custodial interrogation is required. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration. [4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicants including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicants to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicants by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following R/CR.MA/8846/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 aspects. (1) The applicants have no past antecedent. (2) Allegation made in FIR that, offence took place with regard to fraudulent act in respect of ancestral lands bearing Survey No.64 of village Devnimori and Survey No.6 of village Dolatpur. Two heirs namely late Anandkuvarba Jadeja and late Gajaraba Jadeja were already expired, however, accused Rajendrasinh Jadeja purchased stamp papers, signed them falsely and presented before the Mamlatdar, Bhiloda and thereby, got names of the deceased removed from the revenue record by showing that they had relinquished their rights from the ancestral property. (3) Father of the complainant has already filed Civil Suit No.51/2008 for partition of said land of village Devnimori in which as legal heir, the complainant is entered as party to the suit and, which is already sub judice. (4) Legal heirs of deceased Anandkuvarba Surajmalsinh Jadeja have afÏrmed through the afÏdavits that late Anandkuvarba had expressed her consent to relinquish her rights. (5) Applicants have not actively participated in preparation, execution or presentation of alleged notarized release deed and under a mutual family understanding by legal heirs of late Mulsinh Jadeja, signed in the release deed as all the legal rights had willingly participated and applicants have no reason to doubt on it. (6) Case is based on documentary evidence. (7) Dispute is in connection with ancestral land between the family members. (8) Applicants are ready and willing to join investigation. [5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the R/CR.MA/8846/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application. [6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicants in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11188003250106 of 2025 registered with Bhiloda Police Station, Dist. Aravalli, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicants: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 09.05.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicants; (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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer; (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 address to the investigating ofÏcer and the court concerned and shall not change her/his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; (g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail; R/CR.MA/8846/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 (h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.- [7.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail. [8.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/05/2025 16:27:55