1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2020
  6. /
  7. January

Lavbhai Krishnakantbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat

High Court Of Gujarat|22 September, 2023
1. Rule. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail in connection with the FIR being I-C.R. No. 11216025200211 of 2020 registered with Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Kishan Chakwala for Mr. Ankit Modi, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the matter is of the year 2004 and after the period of 16 years, present compliant has been filed under Covid-19 pandemic. He stated that the only role attributed to the present applicant is of signatory as being panchas in the pedigree panchnama, executed before the Talati-cum-Mantri, Mulsana. Mr. Chakwala, Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 22:39:29 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/9857/2020 ORDER also stated that the accused no.7 has been released on anticipatory bail and accused nos.4 and 6 have died in the year 2006 and in proceedings before the Revenue Authority, accused nos. 1 to 7 have been declared as agriculturist. He further submitted that though, the civil rights are involved in the matter, no Civil Suit has been filed and just to create pressure on the accused, complaint came to be filed. Mr. Chakwala, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Gulabbhai Manibhai Desai and 2 Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & 1 Anr. passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. (For Quashing and Set Aside FIR/ORDER) No.13221 of 2015 and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has observed that family pedigree would not come under the definition of false documents. It was therefore, prayed that discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant to enlarge him on regular bail.
4. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, countering to the arguments, submitted that false pedigree has been shown and Chimanlal @Chandulal is the maternal grandfather of the present applicant and in connivance documents are executed. She further stated that the facts in the case referred are different and they are on different footing. Affidavits are wrong and taking disadvantage of names, false pedigree came to be drawn and after being shown, as heirs of Chandulal, sale deed has been executed. Ms. Pathak, further submitted that the investigation is at crucial stage and therefore, no discretion should be exercised in favour of the present applicant.
5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. It is admitted fact that the present applicant Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 22:39:29 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/9857/2020 ORDER is a witness to the Panchakyas i.e. pedigree drawn before the Talati-cum-Matri, whether the person shown in the pedigree, are the legal heirs of Chandulal @ Chimanlal is question of fact and is required to be challanged before the Civil Court and parties are required to prove the facts before the Civil Court. The jurisdiction lies before the Civil Court to decide the issue. Hence, to the designation of the title of being agriculturist declared by Revenue Court, and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was merely witness to the pedigree, executed before the Talati-cum-Mantri, discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicant.
6. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being I-C.R. No. 11216025200211 of 2020 registered with Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he 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;
[d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned trial court;
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the concerned trial court;
7. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It is clarified that the Court below shall not be influenced by any of the observation made in this order during the trial.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted today.
9. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/jail authority by Fax or Email forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) NEHA / NVMEWADA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 22:39:29 IST 2020
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Gita Gopi