Oral Order

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11208002250894 of 2025, registered with Aji Dam Police Station, District: Rajkot City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 34 and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

3. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties.

          3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that:

          a) the applicant is not named in the FIR;

          b) Parvatiben Chaturbhai Bhavani, original accused No. 4 as well as Kajalben Karamshibhai Parmar, original accused No. 5, in the FIR, have purchased the disputed property on the basis of the power of attorney have been granted anticipatory bail;

          c) that, some of the subsequent purchasers have also been granted interim relief in the quashing petition/s filed by them;

          d) that, the present applicant is not a beneficiary in the alleged transaction;

          e) that, the entire case rests on documentary evidence and therefore, no custodial interrogation is required;

          f) that, the alleged forged power of attorney is executed on 05.01.2008, whereas, the sale deeds have been entered into by the wife of the present applicant and one Kajalben, on 28.09.2008 and the FIR in question is lodged after a period of 17 years and for such inordinate delay on 08.08.2025 and despite the fact that his father was alive and was also residing at Rajkot, has not raised any grievance with regard to the alleged sale way back in the year 2008 and merely on the basis of the statement of son of Bhagvanbhai that the signature does not match with that of his father's signature, alleged to have been put in the power of attorney, granted in favour of the one Israrkhan, the same would not prima facie attract the provisions of Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 34 and 120B of the IPC;

          g) that, there are no allegations in the FIR with regard to the power of attorney having been forged by the present applicant;

          h) that, merely because in the Charge-sheet, the applicant is shown as absconding, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed the alleged crime;

          i) that, the applicant is 63 years old and is falsely implicated in the crime coupled with the fact that the complaint is lodged at the belated stage and that too, such delay has remained unexplained;

          j) that, only because Kajalben, who is the beneficiary of the land, that the applicant who is the husband of original accused No. 4 - Parvatiben, it cannot be said that the applicant committed the crime as alleged;

          k) that, the power of attorney is of 2008, whereas, Bhagvanjibhai has expired in the year 2013 and during his entire lifetime, none of the persons had come forward challenging the validity of the said power of attorney;

          l) that, the applicant has not chosen to file any civil suit or exhausted any civil remedy and has directly filed present complaint to pressurize the applicant and subsequent purchasers and thus, having resorted to criminal machinery, which is nothing but an arm-twisting;

          m) that, initially, the present complainant had lodged a complaint with regard to land grabbing on 09.07.2025 and that, the applicant had also cooperated and his statement also came to be recorded on 17.07.2025. However, after lodging of the said complaint under the Land Grabbing Act, as the same could not be culminated into the FIR, the present FIR has been filed as a counterblast to the same;

          n) that, even as on today, the power of attorney is not sent to the FSL for comparing the signature and the writings of Bhagvanjibhai.

          3.2 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

          3.3 The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant.

4. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and requested not to entertain this application.

          4.1 It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is ample material on record, more particularly, the statement of son of Bhagvanjibhai namely Ashokbhai Nathwani to the effect that the photograph appended to the power of attorney dated 05.01.2008 is not of his father and the signature is also not that of his father.

          4.2 It is submitted that even as per the statement of co-accused Israrkhan, it is at behest of the present applicant that the entire gamut of preparing bogus power of attorney under the pretext of preparing Ration Car of Israrkhan, has been entered into. That, Israrkhan was called from UP under the pretext of preparing Ration Card pursuant to which, the alleged forged power of attorney was prepared based on which, the applicant's wife is beneficiary of the half of the land and thus, he argued that the entire hatching of conspiracy with regard to preparing of forged power of attorney and selling the land to the wife of the applicant is at the behest of the applicant.

          4.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the complainant was originally not resident of Rajkot and was residing at Bombay and purchased the property from Kantilal Dodiya in the year 1991 and relocated in the year 1991 in Maharashtra and since only his father was residing alone at Rajkot, it cannot be said that while the complainant relocated himself at Rajkot in the year 2024 and pursuant his desire, sold the property had given public notice after which he came to be know that the property is already been sold based on power of attorney that the complaint is lodged and thus, the delay is sufficiently explained and therefore, also, he submitted that the aspect of delay cannot be gone into at the stage of anticipatory.

          4.4 Making above submissions, it is urged that this application may be rejected.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of the Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided.

6. On the anvil of the aforesaid principles, if the case on hand is tested, the Court perused the report of the PSI, Ajidam Police Station, Rajkot submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The Court has also considered the facts of the case on hand. It prima facie transpires from the record of the case that a more than prima facie appears to have been made out against the present applicant and his complicity in the alleged crime cannot be denied inasmuch as one of the beneficiaries of the alleged forged power of attorney is the accused No. 4, who is the wife of the present applicant. From the case so put forth, prima facie it can be culled out that the it is the applicant at whose behest, the power of attorney alleged to have been forged as per the statement as per the statement of the co-accused coupled with the statement of son of Bhagvanji namely Ashokbhai, which cannot been brushed aside lightly. Further, it prima facie appears that this is not a simple case of civil nature and manner in which the entire things have happened in the case and the modus operandi adopted, the role of the present applicant, at whose instance, the offence appears to have taken place cannot be denied and his custodial interrogation is required to churn out the truth. Accordingly, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

7. In fine, the application is rejected. Rule is discharged.