In a recent judgement by the Gujarat High Court, bail has been granted in the Land Dispute Forgery Case. The case, involving the alleged forged power of attorney in a property dispute, has seen the Court allowing the applicant to be released on certain conditions. The first informant, represented by Zaheer Sarfulla Shaikh, filed the FIR in connection with the incident, which occurred between 2019 and 2022. Stay tuned to know more about the Court’s decision in this case.
Facts
- The present application is filed for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- The FIR in question is C.R.NO. 11214042240135 of 2024 registered with Olpad Police Station, Surat.
- The alleged incident occurred between 01.08.2019 and 02.08.2019, but the FIR was lodged on 17.02.2024.
- Learned advocate for the applicant highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR.
- Learned APP for the respondent-State waived service of rule.
Arguments
- The first informant filed civil suits against the present applicant but failed to obtain any interim order.
- The FIR was lodged after the failure to obtain any relief through civil suits.
- The FIR was lodged in the Year 2024 while the incident occurred in 2021-22.
- The first informant had previously given a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police.
- The only role attributed to the applicant is signing the allegedly forged power of attorney as a witness.
- The role of the co-accused is seen as lesser than that of the present applicant, therefore, parity cannot be claimed.
- The present applicant signed a forged power of attorney as a witness, knowing it was forged, according to the opposition by the Learned APP.
- The first informant executed a power of attorney, which was later forged by the accused persons.
- The original power of attorney did not grant the attorney the power to transfer properties, as stated by the original complainant’s advocate.
- The accused persons manipulated the original power of attorney, resulting in fraudulent sale deeds of properties belonging to the first informant.
- The present applicant actively participated in the offense by signing the forged power of attorney as a witness, being aware of its fraudulent nature.
- The investigation of the offense is ongoing, leading to the submission to allow the present application and grant bail under specific conditions.
Analysis
- First informant executed a power of attorney in favor of Zaheer Sarfulla Shaikh for property administration.
- Police initially found no offense in the alleged forged power of attorney.
- First informant later submitted a new application leading to the FIR being lodged.
- Co-accused changed the pages of the power of attorney, creating a forged document appointing Anjarali Haidarali Malek.
- The first informant had previously submitted an application to the police authorities in 2020 regarding the matter.
- The first informant engaged in civil litigations against the accused persons without obtaining interim orders.
- Anjarali Haidarali Malek executed sale-deeds based on the forged power of attorney.
- No direct involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offense.
- The forgery took place in 2019.
- The other co-accused have been ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
- Consideration of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.
- Prima facie, the Court finds this to be a fit case for the applicant to be enlarged on regular bail.
- The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR CR No. 11214042240135 of 2024 registered with Olpad Police Station, Surat, on certain conditions.
- Conditions include not misusing liberty, not obstructing police investigation, surrendering passport, not leaving the State of Gujarat without permission, marking monthly presence at the Police Station, furnishing current address, and not changing residence without permission.
- The applicant will be released only if not required for any other offence.
- The Sessions Judge is empowered to take appropriate action in case of breaching any of the imposed conditions.
- The bail bond is to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction over the case.
Decision
- Direct service is permitted
- Trial Court should not be influenced by preliminary observations made by the Court while granting bail
- Rule is made absolute to the extent mentioned
- The concerned Court has the discretion to delete, modify, or relax the conditions mentioned in the ruling
Case Title: JIGNESHBHAI THAKORBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/7960/2024
