1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in CRNo.I-7 of 2012 registered with Varahi Police Station against respondent Nos.1 to 9 for offence punishable under Sections 465,467,468,469,471, 474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. All the respondents preferred bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patan and they have been granted anticipatory bail on 29.5.2012 and such order is challenged here on various grounds made out in this petition.
3. It is urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner that respondents had falsely contended in an application made before Assistant Charity Commissioner that the Trust was having the property of Ramji Mandir. However, the applicant was the owner of the land of the property.
4. It is also further urged that civil disputes are pending in respect of other lands having Survey Nos.14,33,60,185 and 243. However, the property in question is .115/1 and the Court disregarded such number. It is further urged that the meeting, which was said to have been held at Sarpanch's place also was falsely mentioned and, there was fraudulent signature obtained of Sarpanch. Some of the persons, who were said to have been present were also not present and thus this hardly can be called a case where exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438, requires to be exercised.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has urged that there is criminal element in forging some of the documents produced. The fact cannot be denied that there are civil disputes pending between the parties, but that may not take away element of criminality.
6. On having thus heard learned advocate for the petitioner as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in the opinion of this Court, no interference is required. Challenge under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure essentially is to the order on merits and, therefore the order impugned requires to be examined closely and that does not indicate any manner such error, which would call for interference. Consideration for cancellation of bail would be much different, particularly, when the same is challenged on merits.
As can be noted from the disputes between the parties and the order impugned that the parties are disputing in connection with a temple land. The disputes are pending before the Civil Courts as well as before the Revenue Authorities. In the meantime, a complaint has been filed by the present applicant. The trial Court noted the fact that allegations in the complaint are of committing forgery for possessing the Trust property in connivance with one another. The Court also noted that none of the accused is Government servant nor are they having in their possession any record and, therefore there is no question of any tempering. Most of the persons are agriculturist, who are not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, these disputes should not result into sending them to jail as a pre-trial detention.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court committed no error. It has correctly exercised the powers by relying on the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694.
Even if the version of the learned advocate is admitted that it is a different parcel of land, than those mentioned by the Court concerned, nevertheless content and tenor of the order would not change nor would the reasonings lose its flavour. Since no ground is set out for cancellation, application is dismissed.
(Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) sudhir Top