The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on regular bail in connection with CR No. I - 65 of 2011 registered with Gorva Police Station, Vadodara, for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B & 201 of I.P. Code.
Learned Advocate Mr. Singh for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He has contended that the alleged complaint is filed at the behest of the persons who were interested in purchasing the land and since they could not obtain the title clear certificate due to objections raised by the accused No.1, the alleged complaint is filed to pressurize the accused No.1 by involving all the other persons who had signed in the agreement to sell. He has contended that the applicant was working with accused No.1 - Yusufbhai Siddikbhai Shaikh and as per his instruction, the applicant has made his signature on the document. He has contended that as per the contents of FIR, prima-facie, case is not made out against the applicant. He has contended that in a similar case being CR No. I-44 of 2011 registered with Kishanwadi Police Station, Vadodara, against the applicant and others, this Court has enlarged the applicant on regular bail. He has contended that only allegation against the applicant is that he had signed on the document as witness and, therefore, he may be released on regular bail. He has also contended that no expert opinion produced in connection with the forged document. He, therefore, prays that the applicant may be released on bail.
As against this, learned APP Mr. Jani has read the papers and contended that the applicant is a habitual offender and against him other four offences have been registered in different Police station. He has contended that the applicant is one of the co-conspirator of main accused Yusuf. He has contended that forged document was prepared by wrongly showing the thumb impression of Motibhai in which the present applicant had signed as witness. He has contended that looking to the registration of offences against the applicant in different police stations, it clearly appears that the applicant is a habitual offender and he is co-conspirator with other accused. He has contended that looking to the facts of the case, prima-facie, case is made out against the applicant and, therefore, the application for regular bail may not be entertained.
Heard both the parties. I have also perused the papers produced before me. It appears that main accused Yusufbhai has prepared forged Banakhat on a stamp paper of Rs.10/- on 4.12.1995, by putting the thumb impressions of the grand father and grand mother of the complainant. In the complaint it is alleged by the complainant that his grand father and grand mother, both are old aged and though his grand father is able to sign in Gujarati, the accused have wrongly put his thumb impression on the document and the present applicant had signed as witness in the said document with an ulterior motive. From the papers, it appears that similar offences have been registered against the present applicant and others in police stations vide different CR Numbers. No doubt, this Court has enlarged the present applicant on Bail in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12613 of 2011, vide order dated 3.10.2011, in connection with the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 473, 384, 504, 120-B and 114 of I.P. Code registered with Kisanwadi Police Station, Vadodara, vide CR No. I - 44 of 2011, but, at that time it was not brought to the notice of this Court that against the very applicant other offences of similar nature have been registered in different police station.
Looking to the facts of the case and looking to the involvement of the applicant in the offences, it is clearly established that the applicant is a habitual offender and, therefore, I do not deem it proper to entertain this application.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas Top