ORDER : 1. By way of the present application, applicant has prayed to allow this application by cancelling regular bail granted to the Respondent No.2 vide order dated 11.05.2020 passed by Ld. I/c. 14th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Cr.M.A. No. 787 of 2020 herein in connection with the offence registered as C.R. No. I 11208053200148 of 2020 lodged with Rajkot Taluka Police Station, Rajkot and be pleased to order him to be taken into judicial custody forthwith and be pleased stay operation of the order dated 11.05.2020 as stated hereinabove and direct the respondent No.2 to surrender to judicial custody. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Judge is not sustainable as learned Judge has not even recorded his reasons as to how there is no prima facie case against the applicant and what role is played by him. That the order passed by the learned Judge is not sustainable since it is based on a misapplication of a fact that investigation is over and in fact the Investigating Officer, in his affidavit, has clearly stated that the investigation is in progress. That, the order passed by the learned Judge is not sustainable since the very theory put forward by the respondent no.2 of being a bonafide purchaser holds no water since it was clear on record that a property, the market value of which is about Rs. 25 crores, no bonafide purchaser would question the same being sold at a thrown away price of Rs 1 crore. That the order passed by the learned Judge is erroneous since the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the bank accounts are opened in the name of mentally unsound Mahendra two or three days before when the transactions is to be shown on paper and within a couple of days, the transferred amount is withdrawn by cheques drawn upon self which ex facie indicates a large conspiracy and connivance between the accused rather than a presumption of innocence. That, learned Judge has failed to consider that other accused were yet to be apprehended and both the accused which were arrested came to be released by the learned Judge. That, learned Judge has failed to consider that other accused were yet to be apprehended and both the accused which were arrested came to be released by the learned Judge. That, learned Judge has failed to consider that if the time of lodgement of the FIR was suspicious, the accused cannot get benefit for the same. That, complaint was given to Police Commissioner way back and the FIR is lodged at a later stage which does not in anyway lessen the guilt of the accused and the attending circumstances clearly show, and the learned Judge also believed that the First Informant's family was wronged and yet the learned Judge went on to grant bail to the Respondent no.2 even before the completion of investigation. Lastly, learned advocate for the applicant has requested to allowed present application. 4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has supported the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that prima facie offence is committed by the respondent no.2 punishable under Section 465, 467, 468, 471 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code hence, bail granted by learned Sessions Court, Rajkot is required to be cancelled. 5. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that the matter of civil nature has been tried to give the colour of criminal offence. That, it is not true that the husband and sons of the applicant are mentally unstable and respondent had taken advantage by showing the photographs of the girls and enticing them to marry off with these girls and thus alluring them to enter into registered sale deed. That, husband of the applicant had filed probate application being Civil Misc. Application No. 120 of 2010 wherein the husband of the applicant had also filed affidavit wherein he had not disclosed that he is mentally challenged persons. That the daughter of the present applicant had filed Special Civil Suit No. 147 of 2019 at Rajkot seeking share in the said property in question as well as for declaring the sale deed dated 23.07.2019 as invalid and cancelled. That no error is committed by Trial Court, in allowing the prayer of releasing the applicant on bail. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for respondent no.2 to dismiss this application. 6. That no error is committed by Trial Court, in allowing the prayer of releasing the applicant on bail. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for respondent no.2 to dismiss this application. 6. Having gone through the facts of the case and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot as well as arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State and dispute between the parties, it appears that while dealing with the mentally challenged the husband and two sons of original complainant, learned Sessions Judge has observed in its judgment dated 11.05.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 787 of 2020 has observed in para 25 as under: 25. Learned advocates from either sides have vehemently argued against and for as regards the husband and two sons of the original complainant being mentally ill or mentally retarded or mentally challenged and documents to that extent have also been produced. It is time that, the husband of original complainant was one of the applicant in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.120 of 2010, which was filed before Civil court, Rajkot, praying for probate certificate or letters of administration as regards the properties of late Ravjibhai Sorathiya. It is also time that, the husband of original complainant has not been represented by his next best friend in the said Civil Misc. Application No.120 of 2010. Mr. Parmar has rightly submitted that, husband of the original complainant had also filed affidavit in the said Civil Misc. Application No.120 of 2010 in his individual capacity, and there is nothing on record as regards the husband and two sons of original complainant having approached the Competent Court of law seeking order as regards their mental illness. On the other hand, the learned P.P. Mr. S.K. Vora and learned advocate Mr. T.M. Gokani have submitted that, both the sons as well as husband of original complainant are mentally ill and they require assistance even for their day to day activities, which also appears to equally true, considering the documents produced by learned advocate Mr. Gokani. Of course, the issue of two sons and husband of original complainant, whether or not were and are mentally ill or mentally retarded or mentally challenged would be matters of evidence at the time of trial. Gokani. Of course, the issue of two sons and husband of original complainant, whether or not were and are mentally ill or mentally retarded or mentally challenged would be matters of evidence at the time of trial. The allegation about the original complainant's son being lured to execute sale deed in favour of the applicant under the guise of marriage also appears to be time since. Learned P.P. Mr. Vora has submitted video recording of Sub Registrar's Office, where original complainant's son Mahendrabhai was taken to execute sale deed in favour of applicant, where according to Mr. Vora he is seen asking the accused persons about the girl for his marriage, however, the same would also be matter of evidence as the prosecution will be required to prove the authenticity of electronic evidence i.e. video recording. 7. It also appears from the record that respondent no.2 has also preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No. 8122 of 2020 before this Court wherein this court was pleased to pass an order on 11.06.2020 that no further action, even in procedure, shall be undertaken in any manner by the respondent authorities, with regard to the FIR in question. It also appears from the record that before lodging the complaint, applicant obtained a newspaper cutting about news published in the daily newspaper “AKILA” on 13.11.2010 stating that respondent no.2 along with other persons have tried to acquire the land of 25 crores by paying only Rs. 1 crore and therefore, respondent no.2 approached the Police Commissioner, Rajkot and submitted detailed reply and requested to hear him before registering any complaint against him. Thereafter, the present applicant registered present complaint on 19.11.2019. The Police Authorities, after going through the investigation, came to the conclusion to register a chapter case No. 98/2020 against the respondent no.2 and taken preventive measures under Section 107, 116(3) and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also appears from the record that respondent no.2 purchased the land in question by paying sum of Rs. 1 Crore (Rupees One Crore) only and sale deed was registered before the office of the Sub Registrar on 23.07.2019 by the consent of the original complainant who is the power of attorney executed on 19.07.2019. The power of the attorney was given by the father i.e. husband of the original complainant. From the account statement produced on record, it appears that Rs. The power of the attorney was given by the father i.e. husband of the original complainant. From the account statement produced on record, it appears that Rs. 1 Crore was transferred in the account of Parshottambhai Sorathiya, who is the husband of the present applicant. Sale deed was executed on 23.07.2019 with the consent of the present applicant. It also appears that in the year 2017, complainant and her husband as well as sons had borrowed some of Rs.50,000/from one Mr.Girishbhai Polabhai Khatariya and for that all the four persons had executed one promissory note on 10.10.2017, wherein said amount was to be recovered from the said land in question. As per the affidavit of the respondent No.2, he was supposed to pay Rs.10 Lakhs separately to Mr.Girishbhai Polabhai Khatariya and the land was made unencumbered. It is also not in dispute that daughter of the applicant has preferred one Civil Suit being Special Civil Suit No.147 of 2019 before the Civil Court at Rajkot seeking share from the property in question and praying to declare the sale deed dated 23.07.2019 as invalid or cancelled. It also appears from the order passed by the learned Sessions Court at Rajkot while releasing the respondent No.2 on regular bail that the husband of the present applicant had also filed one probate application being Civil Miscellaneous Application No.120 of 2010 wherein he has filed his affidavit wherein he had never disclosed that he was mentally retarded person. Bank statement issued by the Bank of Baroda shows that as per the record said cheque/amount through RTGS request given by account holder was transferred and Pravinbhai has not withdrawn such amount. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 SCC 196, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para (10) as under: It is well settled that the consideration applicable for cancellation of bail and consideration for challenging the order of grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion are different. While considering the application for cancellation of bail, the Court ordinarily looks for some supervening circumstances like; tampering of evidence either during investigation or during trial, threatening of witness, the accused is likely to abscond and the trial of the case getting delayed on that count etc. While considering the application for cancellation of bail, the Court ordinarily looks for some supervening circumstances like; tampering of evidence either during investigation or during trial, threatening of witness, the accused is likely to abscond and the trial of the case getting delayed on that count etc. Whereas, in an order challenging the grant of bail on the ground that it has been granted illegally, the consideration is whether there was improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in grant of bail. The appellant has challenged the very grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion ignoring the relevant materials to be considered in the application for bail. Since the High Court proceeded under the footing as if the appellant had filed the application only for cancellation of bail for which, the consideration is different, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. 9. From the facts as reported by this Court as well as circumstances, this Court is of the view that prayer to cancel the bail granted by learned Sessions Court, Rajkot in favour of the respondent No.2 vide order dated 11.05.2020 passed by Ld. I/c. 14th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No. 787 of 2020 is not legal or proper and impugned order is right and legal. Thus, this Court would not like to interfere in the impugned order, and hence, present application requires to be dismissed. 10. With the aforesaid observation, present application stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.