JUDGMENT 1. By filing the present petition under sections 439 (2) and 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner, original complainant, has prayed to set aside the judgment and order dated 11.11.2009 so as to cancel anticipatory bail granted to respondents Nos.2 and 3. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) has, by the impugned elaborate judgment, adopted the view that, according to the complaint of the present petitioner, registered as C.R.-I No.213 of 2008 on 11.9.2008, offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 325, 427, 506 (2) of IPC and section 135 of Bombay Police Act were reported and subsequently offences under sections 395 and 397 of IPC were added by a report; but the present respondents were not found to have been involved in those offences in the charge-sheet filed on 26.2.2009. The other accused persons against whom charge-sheet is filed have been released on bail and the respondents herein are entitled to the benefit on the ground of parity. Offences punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were subsequently added after an order of this Court directing further investigation and during such further investigation, respondents herein have co-operated and at the end their detailed statements have been recorded. After submission of progress report of further investigation, one more accused person has been arrested and section 120-B of IPC is also added. Addition of other offences after a long time is not natural and custodial interrogation of the opponents was not required, according to the impugned judgment. Taking into account availability of the respondents, evidence of the alleged offences being in the form of documentary evidence and co-operation of the respondents being assured, the impugned order is made with the direction that the respondents shall report to the police station on 17.11.2009, shall be required to seek regular bail within ten days of the execution of the order and the investigating officer shall be entitled to apply for police custody, if required. The important observation in the impugned judgment is that there was hardly any reliable material about active involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences. 3. The important observation in the impugned judgment is that there was hardly any reliable material about active involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences. 3. The petitioner, original complainant, has, after elaborately stating the background of the disputes between him and the respondents, submitted that respondent No.2 is a sitting M.L.A. of the ruling party and respondent No.3 is his son, who had tried to grab land of poor farmers and various cases, civil and criminal, were pending against respondent No.2. On 08.9.2008, the petitioner had given an application to police inspector, Sanand, for the threats received by him from respondent No.2, but that complaint was not registered. On 11.9.2008, the complainant and his family members were assaulted by a mob of more than 70 people armed with sticks and other deadly weapons causing serious injuries. As the complaint of that incident was also not registered, the complainant approached this Court and it was only thereafter that F.I.R. was registered wherein two paragraphs of the petitioner's complaint were deleted. Thereafter, investigation into the complaint had had to be transferred from Sanand police station to C.I.D. (Crimes) under orders of this Court. And, during further investigation, more offences had come to light. The petitioner is still not satisfied with the investigation and has serious apprehensions about the witnesses and evidence being tampered. 4. It was submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. Naik, appearing for the petitioner, that respondent No.2 had, by forging fraudulent power-of-attorney, obtained orders converting the complainant's land from new tenure to old tenure and gave away that land to Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) and obtained one consolidated plot of Town Planning Scheme No.212 of Village Ambli at another place. Various civil and criminal litigations have arisen from that transaction. Pursuant to that, respondent No.2, his sons and other persons had conspired to grab the land bearing Survey No.166 of Village Nidhrad, Taluka Sanand which belongs to petitioner's family since the year 1994. Through one accomplice, who is already charge-sheeted, they got prepared a panchnama by Talati and initiated proceedings before Mamlatdar and A.L.T. under the Tenancy Law and obtained an order of status quo. Through one accomplice, who is already charge-sheeted, they got prepared a panchnama by Talati and initiated proceedings before Mamlatdar and A.L.T. under the Tenancy Law and obtained an order of status quo. On the other hand, AUDA had taken the stand before this Court in another proceeding that another accomplice of respondent No.2 will have to pay market value of the plots given to him as consolidated final plot No.63+29 of T.P. Scheme No.212 of Village Ambli. Thus, respondent No.2 and his accomplice were apprehending the liability of Rs.15 to 20 crore. It was under such circumstances that the incident dated 11.9.2008 of assault by a mob on the complainant and his security personnel had taken place. It was further submitted that investigation into the complaint of the petitioner was not properly progressing and various orders in that regard were made by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.1821 of 2008. Representations of the petitioner were not properly considered by the investigating agency and no sooner the offences were added as aforesaid, the respondents had rushed to the Court and obtained the impugned order. Even now, the petitioner has filed a fresh petition being Special Criminal Application No.2176 of 2009 praying to transfer the investigation to CBI and it is pending. It was alleged that the respondents were utilizing their political clout to thwart and misdirect the investigation, even as several other similar offences have been registered against them. 4.1. Assailing the impugned judgment, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Naik that the Court had not taken into consideration relevant facts and circumstances and failed to appreciate that custodial interrogation of the respondents was necessary and expressly required by the investigating officer. He submitted that some of the witnesses were already tampered and the respondents were trying to save their skin by influencing the investigation even as addition of section 120-B of IPC had brought in the angle of conspiracy and it required serious and proper investigation. The Court ought to have appreciated the magnitude and method of committing the offences and ought not to have exercised its discretion in favour of the respondents, according to the submission. 3.2. Learned counsel Mr. Naik relied upon State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [ (2008) 1 SCC 213 ] to submit that following four factors were relevant for considering an application for anticipatory bail: 1. 3.2. Learned counsel Mr. Naik relied upon State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [ (2008) 1 SCC 213 ] to submit that following four factors were relevant for considering an application for anticipatory bail: 1. the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusation as apprehended by the applicant; 2. the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a court, previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable offence; 3. the likely object of the accusation to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested; and 4. the possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice. Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa [ (2007) 14 SCC 537 ] was relied upon for the proposition that, though exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case was not necessary, the Court dealing with an application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal [ (2005) 4 SCC 303 ] was relied upon to submit that it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty, then power is to be exercised under section 438. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and it may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime. For such and other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. “....... The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence.” Er. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence.” Er. K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory, Chandigarh [ AIR 1998 SC 1934 ] was relied upon for the proposition that, if public interest required detention of a citizen in custody for the purpose of investigation, bail could be refused. State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma [ (1997) 7 SCC 187 ] was relied upon to submit that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under section 439 of the Code. In some cases, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and material which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Director of Enforcement v. P.V. Prabhakar Rao [ AIR 1997 SC 3868 ] was relied upon to point out that where other accused persons were released on bail upon failure of the investigating agency to complete the investigation, other accused who had contributed to non-completion of the investigation could not be granted the benefit of parity. Enforcement Officer, TED, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [ (1999) 5 SCC 720 ] was relied upon for the observations made therein that, white-collar criminal is a menace to the society and unless he alleges and establishes in the materials that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the investigating agency, the Court would not be justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 438 of Cr.P.C. State of U.P. Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi [ (2005) 8 SCC 21 ] was relied upon to submit that if the accused were of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail has to be refused. In the facts of that case, the High Court had failed to deal with the vast material clearly indicating that the accused had, at all material times, tried to interfere with the course of investigation, tampered with witnesses, fabricated evidence, intimidated or created obstacles in the path of investigation officers and derailed the case. 5. Learned senior advocate Mr. S.B. Vakil, appearing for respondent No.3, submitted that the petitioner had made baseless allegations in his complaint against the respondents and alibi of respondent No.2 and his other sons having been established by unimpeachable evidence, investigation was directed towards other previous incidents and alleged offences to anyhow implicate the respondents. He submitted that other offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC were sought to be introduced long after the original F.I.R., even as the petitioner-complainant had not seriously and clearly alleged such offences even in his written representation dated 16.02.2009, made during the course of further investigation. Thus, in short, the petitioner was unduly expanding the scope of investigation by an after-thought to harass and malign the respondents. He submitted that technically there was no F.I.R. in respect of the offences now sought to be added and investigation of such offences was without authority of law. Even otherwise, a vague and cryptic allegation cannot form the basis of an F.I.R. or investigation, according to his submission. He also submitted that in fact the petitioner was so influential that such extended and expanded investigation was being undertaken at his instance, while the main criminal case based on the original F.I.R. is already committed for trial and charge is framed therein. It was submitted that respondent No.3, the son of respondent No.2 other than the son named in the F.I.R., was now sought to be implicated without any allegation against him by the petitioner. He defended the impugned judgment by submitting that it was a reasoned and elaborate order based on material available at that stage and there was no reason to interfere with due exercise of discretion by the trial Court. 5.1. Supporting the above arguments, learned counsel Mr. Panchal, appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that it was the petitioner and not the State which was appealing for custodial interrogation of the respondents. 5.1. Supporting the above arguments, learned counsel Mr. Panchal, appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that it was the petitioner and not the State which was appealing for custodial interrogation of the respondents. He submitted that the petitioner was constantly pressurizing the investigating agency for addition of one after other serious offences and sections 467, 468, 471 with 120-B IPC were being added after one year of the original F.I.R., so as to make out an altogether new case to implicate the respondents. He pointed out that the present petition was filed and pressed for immediate stay of the impugned order on 11.11.2009 even without a copy of the impugned judgment, even as neither tampering of any evidence was possible nor was violation of any condition of bail even alleged. 5.2. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 relied upon the observations made in the judgments listed below and they are kept in view in considering the facts of the present case: 1. Savitri Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 683 2. Hazari Lal Das v. State of West Bengal (2009) 12 Scale 307 3. Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [ (1995) 1 SCC 349 ] 4. Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar [ (2005) 4 SCC 178 ] 5. Ramcharan v. State of M.P. [(2004) 13 SCC 616] 6. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ AIR 1977 SC 1489 ] 7. State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha [ AIR 1982 SC 949 ] 8. Vikash Singh v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) Cr.L.J. 1052 10. State v. Veeramani [(1995) Cr.L.J. 184 (Mad.)] 11. Mdhmed Salim Abdul Rasid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat [ 2001 (2) GLR 1580 ] 12. Yazdi Darabsha Icchaporia v. State of Gujarat [2003 Cri.L.J. 2604] 13. State of Gujarat v. Mayaben Surendrabhai Kodnani [ 2009 (2) GLH 109 ] 15. Mohamad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1981 SC 1062 ] 16. R.K. Dalmia v. The Delhi Administration [ AIR 1962 SC 1821 ] 6. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Devang Vyas, appearing for the State, respondent No.1, supported the petition with the submission that respondents No.2 and 3 were indeed required to be arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation, so as to bring out full facts of the case and unearth the missing links in commission of the offences which were obviously co-related. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Devang Vyas, appearing for the State, respondent No.1, supported the petition with the submission that respondents No.2 and 3 were indeed required to be arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation, so as to bring out full facts of the case and unearth the missing links in commission of the offences which were obviously co-related. He submitted that even as new offences were added on the basis of further investigation, the respondents herein were making themselves unavailable since 04.11.2009; and even after ex-parte ad-interim injunction being granted against the impugned order by this Court on 11.11.2009, they could not be contacted for the purpose of arrest. He submitted, on instruction of the investigating officer, that names of respondents No.2 and 3 were surfacing in the statements recorded during September 2009 and further investigation was imperative for making a proper report of further investigation under section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. He further stated, on instructions, that the State had not moved this Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail, but had proposed to make an appropriate application for police custody of the respondents for full and proper interrogation and investigation into the offences which are disclosed during further investigation. 7. The indisputable and relevant facts which emerge from the record and progress of the case so far are that the petitioner's complaint for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 325, 506 (2) and 427 of IPC and section 135 of Bombay Police Act has been registered as C.R.-1 No.213 of 2008 after complaint about its non-registration and after registration of cross-complaint of one of the accused being registered as C.R .No. 212 of 2008. That, prima facie, reveals clout of the accused persons in the police station at Sanand. However, the offences alleged in the F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 213 of 2008 have been investigated and charge-sheet in that regard is already filed in the criminal Court without naming respondents No.2 and 3 as accused persons. Even as the petitioner had pressed for further investigation in another proceeding before this Court and such investigation by a different investigating agency was ordered, the petitioner had made representations for implicating the respondents in the offences for which he had lodged the complaint. Such implication appears to have been blocked by establishment of alibi of respondent No.2 and his another son. Such implication appears to have been blocked by establishment of alibi of respondent No.2 and his another son. It is thereafter that upon investigation and interrogation of other witnesses and re-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were already recorded earlier, that other offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC were coming to light. It could not be disputed that such other offences sought to be now investigated were alleged to have been committed in April 2008 without any reference to which the complaint was made for different offences on 11.9.2008 which came to be registered as C.R.No.213 of 2008. Therefore, it is, prima facie, clear that two sets of offences alleged to have been committed at different times and different locale are sought to be co-related and respondents No.2 and 3 are sought to be implicated with the help of section 120-B of IPC. It is under such circumstances that the impugned judgment recorded that the allegations and material against the respondents were limited and in view of the delay in investigation as well as availability of the respondents, they could be granted anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions as aforesaid. It was in fact the bone of contention between the parties that such observations and findings in the impugned judgment would forever influence subsequent proceedings and the respondents would obtain regular bail as a matter of course so as to permanently thwart further and proper investigation. 8. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record, including relevant part of the statements recorded during further investigation, this Court is of the opinion that the observations in the impugned judgment are based upon the investigation till then and the investigation has not made much progress thereafter due to non-availability of the respondents, pending their application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the present proceeding. Now the investigating agency has decided to demand and justify custodial interrogation by making an appropriate application, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Even as the ground of parity may not be available to the respondents, the material appearing against them is as yet not better than what was placed before learned Sessions Judge. Now the investigating agency has decided to demand and justify custodial interrogation by making an appropriate application, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Even as the ground of parity may not be available to the respondents, the material appearing against them is as yet not better than what was placed before learned Sessions Judge. That, however, does not mean that custodial interrogation may not be required and justified for unearthing full facts about the offences which are found during further investigation to have been committed by forgery and creation of revenue related records to make the petitioner's land disputed so as to pressurize him into submission or surrender in other legal proceedings. The case which is sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner is indeed serious and the allegations, in substance, are pointing to a systematic activity of land grabbing by a group of people with the collusion or connivance of revenue and police authorities. There are, however, gaps between serious allegations based on few facts and strong suspicion and between suspicion and some tentative conclusions which gaps are required to be bridged by reliable material which could be gathered by appropriate investigation. At the same time, respondent No.2 being a sitting M.L.A. of the ruling party, he naturally attracts allegations of the authorities concerned being influenced, even as he and his sons are, just like any other citizens, entitled to protection against unwarranted or unjustified arrest and detention. As observed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (supra), while considering the appeals against grant of bail, where accused has been at large for a considerable time, the post-bail conduct and supervening circumstances will also have to be taken note of. 9. It would be unnecessary and improper, in the above facts and circumstances, to draw any inference or make any observation at this stage on the basis of admittedly incomplete investigation, while the State proposes to make an application for remand into police custody of the respondents, which application will have to be decided on its own merits. Therefore, suffice it to say that, at the present stage of investigation and on the basis of the material available against the respondents at present, the impugned order is not required to be disturbed. Therefore, suffice it to say that, at the present stage of investigation and on the basis of the material available against the respondents at present, the impugned order is not required to be disturbed. But it is with the clarification that the observations made, the inferences drawn and the tentative findings recorded in the impugned judgment shall be treated as having been recorded for and at the stage of deciding the application of the respondents under section 438 of Cr.P.C. And it would be open for the State to apply for and justify custodial interrogation of the respondents on the basis of relevant material which may persuade the Court to grant such relief. Accordingly, subject to the direction that the observations made in the impugned judgment shall not be referred to or relied upon in any subsequent proceeding and the parties shall be at liberty to press or oppose the applications for regular bail or remand on merits and on the basis of the material then available, the present petition is dismissed with necessary modification of the impugned order, as under: Respondents No.2 and 3 shall present themselves before Sanand Police Station on 02.03.2010 between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon and, in the event of their being arrested, they will be released on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to the other conditions contained in the impugned order. The impugned order granting anticipatory bail with aforesaid modifications shall remain in operation till 11.03.2010. 10. Before parting with the judgment, it may be pertinent to observe that, in the facts of the present case, the investigation is found to be tardy, lukewarm and interrupted by various judicial proceedings. Not only that many man-hours and days of the investigating officers are consumed in attending Courts, as reported by learned A.P.P., but so much public time of the Courts is consumed at the cost of many other cases of humble litigants waiting for justice since decades. The matter has been intermittently argued by learned senior advocates appearing on both sides for nearly two weeks and decisions mentioned hereinabove have been discussed in detail for making minute and often irrelevant points. It is but unfortunate that limited time and resources of the Judiciary has to be disproportionately devoted to such fiercely fought legal battles of the rich and powerful. It is but unfortunate that limited time and resources of the Judiciary has to be disproportionately devoted to such fiercely fought legal battles of the rich and powerful. Subject to the above observations and directions, Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.