Amaratbhai Dahyabhai Pandav vs State of Gujarat and Others

S.G. Shah, J.—Petitioner herein is original complainant who has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.05.2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc. Application 601 of 2013, whereby respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were released on bail with reference to Dholka Police Station I - C.R. No. 74 of 2013 lodged against them u/s 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3(1), 5 of the Atrocities Act. The petitioner has lodged a complaint on 04.05.2013 alleging that though he is ill-literate and never studied and thereby though he is unable to put his signature on any documents and though he is putting his thumb impression for all purposes, the respondents have forged certain documents in his name making his forge signature even on stamp papers on different dates from different vendors and make documents on such stamp paper and thereby grabbed his properties, more particularly agricultural land by illegal means and thereby respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had committed an offence under different sections as recorded herein above. It is further alleged in the FIR that on information of such illegality, applicant has initiated legal proceedings against the respondents both before the Revenue Court as well as Civil Court.

As against that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have by filing an affidavit - in - reply contended that the entire story narrated in the FIR is doubtful and not believable because such FIR is lodged only because of land dispute between the parties which is pending since 20 years and such complaint is filed to pressurize them to settle the civil disputes, which are pending for long. It is further contended that though charges are under Atrocities Act, there is no allegations against atrocity upon the applicant. It is further contended that they are in possession of such disputed land from last more than 20 years and this is practically a civil dispute, where trial Court has granted bail considering the relevant material on record. In support of their case, respondents have relied upon the judgments reported in Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, and Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat,

Perusal of entire record, impugned FIR, impugned judgment and copies of several civil litigations pending between the parties produced by both the sides, makes it clear that practically this is a civil dispute pertaining to ownership of particular land wherein, it is alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had forged certain documents. When all such documents are produced on record by the applicant practically investigation is over in as much as now it is for both the parties either during the trial or during civil litigations to prove the authenticity and genuineness of such disputed documents. Thereby, when there is no scope of further tempering with the documents or evidence or abscondment of respondents when they are claiming right over the disputed property, there is no reason to disturb the order of bail, more particularly cancellation of bail is prayed on various legal grounds and not on the ground that any of the conditions of the bail has been breached by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, in ground F of the application, applicant has categorically stated that though the Investigating Officer has issued number of notices to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for production of original copy of forged documents, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have yet not produced forged documents before the investigating agency. In answer to such ground, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had broadly stated that all the grounds are based upon the false facts. Whereas the record shows that applicant himself has produced several documents on record of the trial Court but all those documents are not produced before this Court and therefore it is difficult to confirm that which document is yet not brought on record of the investigation or the Court. Suffice to say that if respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are claiming their rights on disputed property based upon such forged documents either they have to produce it before the Court to substantiate their claim or they have to let go their right over such property, whereas at least photocopy of such disputed documents are produced by the applicant himself on record.

Therefore, since there is effective provisions in law for production of particular evidence and documents on record, if it is in existence, only for production of such evidence, accused cannot be detained in jail for in-definite period. So far as litigation regarding atrocity is concerned though it may be because of reason that there is an issue of grabbing of land of a member of Schedule Tribe, since there is no other allegation in the FIR regarding any direct act by the accused, it is not sufficient to cancel the bail, already granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, only because of reference or charges under the atrocities Act.

The legal position is also settled so far as such issue is concerned, i.e. legality of the order of bail and breach of order of bail by the accused, when it is clear that applicant is not claiming breach of any conditions of bail challenge of the impugned order is to be considered only upon the issue of legality of the order of the bail in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

In the background of facts and circumstances and on perusal of available record, it cannot be said that trial Court has committed any irregularity or illegality in granting bail to the respondents. Therefore, there is no substance in the application. However, if at all investigating agency has failed to recover documents, which are alleged to be forged, then in that case irrespective of bail or any observations, investigating agency can certainly take necessary steps like search to find out such documents and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Thus, this application is dismissed with above observations. Rule is discharged.