Judgment:
1. Heard Mr.Tejas Satta, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.Dabhi, learned APP for respondent State.
2. This application seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by applicant in connection with the offence registered with Mehsana City Police Station being M.Case No.1 of 2011 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 415, 416, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 114 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code.
3. Mr.Satta, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that brother of the applicant viz. Babubhai Gangaram Patel was co-purchaser of the plot in question, along with the present applicant. He submitted that the notice under section 135(d) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was also issued and thereafter the transaction took place. It is submitted that since subsequently prices of the land have escalated, the complaint has been preferred. He has also submitted that applicant is bona fide purchaser. He has also referred to the sale-deed in support of his submission. He has referred to the order dated 11^th April, 2011 vide which the brother of the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail passed in Criminal Misc.Application No.5013 of 2011. He, therefore, submitted that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail.
4. Mr.Dabhi, learned APP has opposed the bail application and relied upon the statement of Talati who submitted that applicant with an old lady had come and requested that the lady was the landlord, hence her signature on notice under section 135(d) of the Code may be taken. Thus, the applicant and other persons have tried to commit fraud with the landlord, and, therefore, present applicant may not be enlarged on bail.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the documents and other material produced on record of this case, the gravity of the offence, the quantum of punishment, the allegations against the applicant, the manner in which the applicant is allegedly involved in the case as per the allegation of the prosecution, coupled with the fact that the co-accused has been released by this Court vide order dated 11^th April, 2011, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with M.Case No.1 of 2011 registered at Mehsana City Police Station on executing a bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall, [a] not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] maintain law and order;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;
[e] furnish the present address of his residence to the I.O. And also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his residence without prior permission of this Court; [f] surrender his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;
[g] mark his presence at the concerned Police Station on 13^th May, 2011 and thereafter on any 1^st and 15^th day of English calender month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM till the trial is over;
7. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in any other offence for the time being.
8. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate action in the matter.
9. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of prima facie nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.