R/CR.MA/9968/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9968 of 2024 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10088 of 2024 ========================================================== SUBHASHBHAI MAGANBHAI SINGAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JK SHAH, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 25/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pratik Y. Jasani appearing on behalf of the applicants – original accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. By way of these applications, the applicants seek to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11213091211155/2021 Registered with Shapar Veraval Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B), 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4(3), 5(c), 5(e) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. 3. Briefly stated, the allegation in the FIR being that the accused had, in connivance with each other, misappropriate R/CR.MA/9968/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 and sold the government owned land admeasuring 3 acres situated at Revenue Survey No.161 Paiki at Village: Lodhika, Taluka: Pardi, District: Rajkot. 3.1. As far as the applicants are concerned, the allegations against the applicants being that the applicants had signed as witnesses to a deed of undertaking by one Nagarbhai Malabhai Jadav as power of attorney of one Bhupat Shantilal Vyas who had transferred all his rights in favour of one Babubhai Chudasama. The said Nagarbhai Malabhai Jadav being arraigned as accused no.2 and the said Babubhai Mithabhai Chudasama being arraigned as accused no.3 in the FIR. 3.2. It appears in this regard that the land in question had been originally allotted to one Bhupat Shantilal Vyas in the year 1976 and whereas, on account of the conditions of the allotment not being fulfilled, the order of allotment had been canceled and the land in question was directed to be resumed by the State. It would appear that the said allottee had challenged the order up to the revisional authority and whereas, vide an order dated 30.07.2015, the revisional authority being the SSRD had rejected the revision R/CR.MA/9968/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 application preferred by the original allottee. 3.3. It would appear that during the interregnum, the said original allottee had, by way of a Will, given all rights on the land in question to one Bhavesh Karunashankar Vyas (arraigned as accused no.1) and one Vijay Karunashankar Vyas (not arraigned as an accused). It would also appear that the order of the SSRD had been assailed before this Court and this Court had also vide order dated 08.02.2018 confirmed the order passed by the SSRD. 3.4. On the other hand, the allegation being that the said Bhavesh Karunashankar Vyas had, in connivance with the other accused, developed a proposed society on the land in question and sold away the land to various purchasers. 3.5. As far as the allegations levelled against the applicants are concerned, as noted hereinabove, the allegation is of having signed a deed of undertaking. The deed inter alia being whereby the original accused no.2 as power of attorney holder of the original allottee, had given all his rights to the accused no.3 herein. 4. It would also be apposite to note that this Court vide an R/CR.MA/9968/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 order dated 26.07.2024, while protecting the present petitioners, had directed the applicants to appear before the Investigating Officer and whereas, the Investigating Officer was directed to file a report and whereas, in the interregnum, the applications were protected. This Court has also perused reports dated 20.06.2025 submitted by the Investigating Officer in case of both the applicants - accused. 5. To this Court, having considered the FIR, the investigation papers, the affidavit by the Investigating Officer as well as the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, it would prima facie appear that the allegations against the applicants are only with regard to having signed the deed of undertaking. It would also appear to this Court that the applicants – accused had not confirmed the substance of the deed as such, rather, it would appear that the applicants had only identified the signatories to the deed in question. 5.1. While it appears that the applicants were also owners of some plots in the land in question, yet, from the report, it would prima facie appear that the applicants had entered into transactions with the other accused whereby the applicants had paid appropriate purchase price with regard to the plots R/CR.MA/9968/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 which had been purchased by them. 6. Having regard to the overall circumstances, more particularly, since it appears to this Court that beyond having signed the undertaking, the allegation of being part of the larger conspiracy may not be directly attributable to the present applicants, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicants are required to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicants herein being arrested pursuant to C.R.No.11213091211155/2021 Registered with Shapar Veraval Police Station, Rajkot (Rural), the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions that the applicants: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station as and when called for; R/CR.MA/9968/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 (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 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 address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change their residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passport shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week; (g) shall mark their presence once in every month for a period of next six months at the concerned Police Station; 8. At the trial, the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail. Rule is R/CR.MA/9968/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/07/2025 17:35:26