ORDER : 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – State. 2. Present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Anticipatory Bail as the applicant is apprehending arrest in connection F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.I-5 OF 2019 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat. 3. The case of the prosecution is that FIR came to be lodged by one Dilipbhai Naranbhai Patel at DCB Police Station, Surat on 2.4.2019 for the offences alleged to have been committed during the period commencing from 30.5.2018 to 30.10.2018 and the said complaint is in connection with grant of Non-agricultural permission to the agricultural bank. It was alleged in the complaint that said Dilipbhai Naranbhai Patel, who is the resident of Surat and was working in the office of District Panchayat as Senior Clerk, upon instruction of DDO (Rural), Shr H.L.Joshi, who directed him to make inquiry about doubtful cases of granting Non-agricultural permission to certain agricultural lands and in that context, during the course of inquiry, it was found that out of that, 7 lands of different blocks and survey numbers are given effect in the revenue record as non-agricultural land which are otherwise found to be on the basis of false and bogus signature and stamp. The 7 land survey numbers which are part of the complaint are belonging to 7 different persons named in the FIR and have got their lands converted on the basis of false and bogus documents. In this connection, after filing of different charge-sheets, the name of present applicant came to be surfaced and shown as an accused, not arrested so far and the allegations against the applicant in a chargesheet dated 10.12.2019 as per the case of prosecution that present applicant alleged to have accepted an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from another accused – Jitendra Sorathiya for the documents which are prepared by Architecture – Kalpenbhai Harsora and thereby, all these persons inter-se alleged to have committed an offence, for which the complaint is lodged. 4. This applicant appears to have filed an application for seeking anticipatory bail before the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat being CR.MA No.4133 of 2019 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C which came to be rejected vide order dated 5.8.2019. 4. This applicant appears to have filed an application for seeking anticipatory bail before the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat being CR.MA No.4133 of 2019 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C which came to be rejected vide order dated 5.8.2019. As a result of which, the present application is submitted before the Court for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with aforesaid FIR. 5. Heard, learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah. 6. Mr.P.K.Jadeja, learned advocate for the applicant, has contended before the Court that the applicant is an innocent person and wrongly been arraigned in the prosecution. It has been submitted that in fact, the role of the applicant is not at all a key role and was merely working in the office of Town Planning. In the relevant papers of charge-sheet, no specific role is attributed except to the extent of alleged acceptance of an amount from the different persons. It has been further submitted that the persons who are in connivance to this alleged commission of crime and specifically named in the FIR except one Mr.Kalpenbhai Harsora, everybody is released on regular bail. Even the person allegedly manufactured the documents have also been granted bail. As a result of this, there is no earthly reason not to grant anticipatory bail to present applicant, particularly when the different charge-sheets have been filed and the role of the present applicant is not main role. It has been submitted that except making an entry in inward and outward register, there is no work undertaken by the present applicant in the aforesaid complaint. 6.1 Learned advocate has submitted that now, the investigation is practically completed; all the relevant details and the documents are very much collected and as such, custodial interrogation is not required. It has further been pointed out that present applicant has already superannuated and is at present aged about 62 years and she being a lady accused, residing in city of Vadodara, not likely to misuse the liberty in any form and her release on anticipatory will not in any way prejudicially affect the case of prosecution in any form. It has further been pointed out that present applicant has already superannuated and is at present aged about 62 years and she being a lady accused, residing in city of Vadodara, not likely to misuse the liberty in any form and her release on anticipatory will not in any way prejudicially affect the case of prosecution in any form. 6.2 Additionally, Mr.Jadeja, learned advocate, by referring to page-100 and 130 i.e. main chargesheet as well as additional charge-sheet, has referred to relevant assertion and has submitted that even independent witnesses are not also supporting the close involvement of present applicant in commission of crime. So much so that the main accused persons – Alpenbhai is also released on bail and apart from that, there are several orders by virtue of which other co-accused persons have been granted regular bail and as such, by imposing suitable conditions, the Court may grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. To this submission, Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP, submitted that there are serious allegations with respect to taking bribe for the alleged commission of crime and there are as many as 7 land portions which have been granted NA status on the basis of false and bogus documents and for which, in no uncertain terms, the specific allegations with respect to collection of amount to the extent of more than Rs.3 lakhs is visible from the record and that being the position, the applicant may not be granted any relief, as prayed for. However, the learned APP has candidly submitted and could not withstand to the submission that other main accused persons, who are either having a key role or beneficiary are already enlarged on bail and the orders which are attached to the petition compilation, are not in dispute. Hence, the matter is left it to the discretion of the Court. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through overall material on record, without much examining the merit or de-merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the case is made out by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through overall material on record, without much examining the merit or de-merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the case is made out by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. For arriving at this conclusion, the Court has also considered the fact that the persons who have been specifically named in the FIR, are already enlarged on regular bail and further, the documents which are allegedly prepared by Architecture – Shri Kalpenbhai Harsora, has also been extended the protection. The orders of release of accused are not in dispute. Additionally, it has also been found from the material on record that from page-53 onwards are the orders passed by this Court; one in case of Jitendra Sorathiya in CR.MA No.8851 of 2019 passed by the coordinate bench; another co-accused Devendra Patel in CR.MA No.8377 of 2019 on page-170 also extended the protection and released on bail. Further order which is reflecting on page-61 is in respect of Kalpenbhai Harsora, who allegedly prepared the documents, he also has been enlarged on bail and additionally, one Bhupat Gamani, who played a key role, has also been extended the benefit of regular bail reflecting on page-65 and, therefore, considering this overall set of circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant being a lady accused and further, is aged about 62 years, deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, more particularly when all the relevant data and the documents have already been collected during the course of investigation. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein, the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in [1980] 2 SCC 565. 7. Learned Counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. reported in [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein, the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in [1980] 2 SCC 565. 7. Learned Counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that, in the event, the applicant herein is arrested pursuant to F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.I-5 OF 2019 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on following conditions :- [a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required; [b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 23rd June,2020 between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm; [c] shall not enter the local limits of Mandvi Taluka for a period of 3 months from today and after the said period is over, it would be open for the applicant to move for relaxation of this condition. (d) shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; [e] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders; [f] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court immediately. [g] It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand, if h considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits. [h] despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 10. The Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax or e-mail to the trial court.