1. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1662 of 2011 granting regular bail to the respondent No.1 herein in connection with C.R. No. I 27 of 2011 registered with Athawa Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, this application under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code is preferred.
2. It is the say of the complainant petitioner that the disputes relates to the land bearing survey Nos. 171 and 180 situated at Village Majura, Taluka and District Surat and the said land was owned and possessed by Mohanlal Dayalji Desai who passed away on 8th September 1963. The name of his mother and others were mutated vide mutation entry No. 625 dated 25th September 1963. and mutation entry No. 317 dated 17th April 1984 was posted in the revenue record with respect to the said land in the name of Vishal Industrial Cooperative Service Limited to the surprise of the present petitioner.
3. It is the say of the petitioner that District Collector, Surat in Suo Motu revision issued show cause notice and eventually passed an order on 11th October 1989. He restored the original entry in favour of the erstwhile owner and the mutation entry No. 317 got cancelled.
3.1 This was challenged by Vishal Industrial Cooperative Service Limited before the Secretary, Revenue Department vide its order 26th May 2008 dismissed the Revision Application.
4. It is the say of the applicant that respondent No.1 allegedly the kingpin of offences who made the representation to the State Government which was rejected on 29th January 2011 after serious litigations between the parties. An attempt is made by respondent No. 1 to grab the land by unlawful means and he tried to enter the land forcefully.
5. It is also the say of the applicant that auction in respect of suit land has never taken place and at no point of time loan has been given to the mother of the applicant by Vanz Seva Sahakari Mandali the order of grant of bail has been challenged on various grounds.
6. On issuance of the notice for respondent No. 1 Ms Kruti M. Shah had appeared and filed affidavit in reply interalia urging that none of the conditions has been violated after the grant of bail which is about two months back. Considering the arrears in the magisterial Court and also keeping in mind the fact that the complaint was filed nearly six months before the Court passed an appropriate order.
7. It is the say of the respondent No. 1 that the mother of the complainant Parvatiben Desai who is the original owner of the land could not repay the loan amount of Vanz Seva Sahakari Mandali and therefore through the Special Recovery Officer the land was auctioned on 19th April 1975 which Vishal Industrial Cooperative Service Limited purchased the suit land in public auction and the mutation entry was posted in favour of the Mandali on 28th May 1981 which was certified on 17th April 1984. The respondent herein when became president of the Mandali has been falsely involved in the complaint filed by the present petitioner. It is the say of the respondent that for cancellation of revenue entry challenge was made by the complainant and there are several litigations between the parties. He emphasised that nowhere the present respondent was in the picture as he had nothing to do with Vishal Industrial Cooperative Service Limited. The civil litigation being Regular Civil Suit No. 541/2008 is going on between the parties and the respondent No.1 being the present office bearer of the society, to pressurize him to withdraw the suit the complaint has been filed. It is alleged that so much so that Mihir Patel who was a minor (son of the respondent) when the entire transaction was made also has been the accused. There are other elaborate details provided in respect of the said transaction.
8. On having examined the pleadings as also on hearing the learned advocate for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that for the reasons followed hereinafter this application does not deserve any entertainment.
9. There are long drawn litigations between parties which are of civil and revenue in nature. The very fact that the complaint has arisen from these litigations itself is a reason to prima facie hold that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature. The Senior Judge, Surat relying on the decision of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr reported in 2011(1) SCC 694 as also on discussing sufficiently the disputes between the parties granted the regular bail. The Court also went to the extent of noting that to overreach the provisions of Urban and Ceiling Act the transactions of land which are emerging on the record might have taken place. There was yet another aspect the Court noted is that the complainant after his retirement was also acting as an administrator of the very same bank and cumulatively when it found that there was barely any evidence connecting the respondent with the crime it deemed it fit to allow the application for regular bail.
9.1 The case does not fall under the criteria laid down for cancellation of bail nor in any manner the petitioner pointed out any misconduct on the part of the respondent No.1 after his enlargement. There being no possibility of any tampering of evidence neither on merit nor subsequent conduct the petitioner could convince this Court to interfere with the order passed by learned Sessions Judge. This application for cancellation of bail therefore, merits no acceptance and is therefore dismissed.
(Ms. Sonia Gokani,J.) mary//