ORDER : Pursuant to the order dated 03.05.2021 passed by this Court, the first informant has filed an affidavit dated 03.05.2021, whereby he has stated that he does not oppose this regular bail application, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. The said affidavit is ordered to be taken on record. 1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing. 2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with an F.I.R. being C.R. No.11216025210071 of 2021 registered with Santej Police Station, Dist.Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that, the F.I.R. in question came to be filed by One Mita Mathur D/o Basantkumar, daughter of one Basantkumar Banwarilal, resident of New Delhi, inter alia alleging that she is residing with her family at New Delhi. It is alleged that said Basantkumar is having two daughters one Mita and another is Nita. It is alleged that his father Basantkumar died in the year of 2016 and mother also died in the year 2017 leaving behind many lands in Dantali Village in the name of both the sisters. It is alleged that her sister Nita also died in the year 2018. It is further alleged that the first informant is the resident of New Delhi. She came to knew that from 135 notice viz. Village From No.6 her name was mutated in revenue records, therefore, she got doubt as she had never applied for her name to be mutated in the revenue records and, therefore, she made an inquiry at Ahmedabad, wherein, she came to know that someone has made wrong, fabricated Pedhinama in her name wherein, her sister, who died in the year 2018, was shown as without legal heirs, however, the first informant’s sister had died with the legal heir viz. Siddharth, who is residing at Dubai. Therefore, by creating fabricated pedhinama (pedigree) someone has shown her deceased sister as without legal heir. Siddharth, who is residing at Dubai. Therefore, by creating fabricated pedhinama (pedigree) someone has shown her deceased sister as without legal heir. Further, her Death Certificate is also fabricated because her death in the certificate is shown on 01.11.2017, however, she had died on 05.11.2018 at Jaipur and her mother's death certificate is also fabricated, therefore, a bogus notarized documents was executed and produced before the Talati to enter the first informant's name in the revenue records. Upon inquiry by the Crime Branch, Gandhinagar, it came to be known that from the statement of Notary that one Pradip Kapoor (i.e. the applicant) had taken the BookRegister of notary and therefore, the complainant got apprehension that the said Pradip Kapoor might have executed many other documents. Accordingly, the F.I.R. came to be registered. 4. Mr.Y.S.Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Samir Afzal Khan, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the applicant, except the statement of her notary, who alleged that the applicant has taken the book of notary except that there is no allegation in the entire F.I.R. He has submitted that the applicant has been made scapegoat because in the entire F.I.R., there is no allegation of cheating or any fraud or any documents which has been benefited to the applicant has been alleged against the applicant. It is submitted that most importantly even in the affidavit of the investigating officer also, no benefit or any motive is alleged and, therefore, no mens rea alleged in the F.I.R. or in the affidavit. He has further submitted that there is a huge delay in lodging the F.I.R. as per the F.I.R., the alleged incident took place on 17.03.2020 and notice under section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 was also served at the same time. He has submitted that even as per the statement of Talati before the police, he has not named or identified the applicant. On the contrary, the Talati had given the statement that two anonymous persons came with the old lady and entered the name Nita Mathur and no the Test Identification has been held by the police to identify Nita Mathur by the Talati. On the contrary, the Talati had given the statement that two anonymous persons came with the old lady and entered the name Nita Mathur and no the Test Identification has been held by the police to identify Nita Mathur by the Talati. He has also submitted that there is no monetary loss or revenue loss or any fraud or any valuable security (document) in the name of third party has been created or any loss to any person committed. He has also submitted that the applicant is aged 64 years and he is suffering from severe ailments. Lastly, it is urged by the learned advocate for the applicant that considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentState has opposed grant of regular bail considering the nature and gravity of the offence and submitted that the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. Learned Advocate Mr.Limbachiya has submitted that the first informant has no objection if the applicant is released on bail reserving his rights and contentions. 6. Having perused the materials placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. This Court has considered following aspects; (i) The role attributed to the accused; (ii) The first informant has filed an affidavit dated 03.05.2021 giving consent on humanitarian grounds to release the applicant on bail (iii) There is a huge delay in lodging the F.I.R. and as per the alleged incident took place on 17.03.2020 and notice under section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 was also served at the same time but the F.I.R. is registered on 18.02.2021; (vi) Prima facie it appears that there is no monetary loss or revenue loss or any fraud or any valuable security (document) in the name of third party has been created or any loss to any person is caused; (viii) The applicant is aged 64 years and he is suffering from severe ailments; (ix) The applicant is in judicial custody since 18.02.2021. 7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. 7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 8. In the result, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with an F.I.R. being C.R. No.11216025210071 of 2021 registered with Santej Police Station, Dist.Gandhinagar, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; (c) surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once between 1st to 15th day of initially two months and thereafter, on alternate month of every English calendar, for a period of six months, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; (f) furnish latest address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the Trial Court; 9. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Trial Court will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. 10. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 11. Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court about the present order by sending a copy of this order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. 12. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 11. Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court about the present order by sending a copy of this order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. 12. Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.