1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Application has been preferred under Section-439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by grant of regular bail by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana Camp-Visnagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1027 of 2011 on 3rd January, 2011.
2. The respondents are the original accused of the complaint being I.C.R. No. 70/2010 registered with the Vadnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections-406, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The present petitioner is the complainant who is serving with S.T. Transport Naroda Workshop. It is alleged that some of the lands that he had owned situated at Vadnagar, Dist. Mehsana, were sold by Sathvara Mangaldas Jyotaram, respondent no.2 herein. His son-in-law has put a signature as a witness in the forged documents concocted by respondent no.2. The sale has been made in the name of the present petitioner and his family members. This is alleged to have been done in connivance with the Talati and Notary.
4. In the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that the dispute is of civil nature. The Vadnagar Police had filed "C' summary report. Subsequently, after the expiry of 14 months period, the accused had been arrested. The Court also has taken into account the fact that there are allegations of forgery. However, the disputes in relation to the lands since are pending before the Civil Court as well as the Revenue Court which are going to be decided between the parties, invoking powers of the grant of bail at the stage of investigation and referring the ratio laid down in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mahetre Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2011 SC 312, bail has been granted by incorporating various conditions.
5. It is to be noted that the challenge to this grant of bail is on account of merits and not because there is an allegation of misuse.
6. On hearing learned Advocate Mr. H.B. Raval appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Rawal appearing for respondent no.1 as well as Mr. H.B. Singh appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3, this Application deserves no consideration on merit.
7. The dispute between the parties has given rise to various litigations which are pending before the Competent Courts. Criminal complaint, on a particular subject, has already been filed. As can be noted from the averments made from the respondent's side and as reflected in the order of the Trial Court, late filing of the complaint and pendency of the land disputes weighed with the Court for grant of regular bail with sufficiency of terms and conditions to secure presence of the respondent at the time of trial as also to further ensure that no tampering with the evidence is done, till the trial is completed.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge having exercised jurisdiction in accordance with law and the petitioner having made out no case for cancellation of bail, this Application deserves no consideration.
(Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) chandrashekhar* Top