ORDER : 1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State. 2. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing. 3. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the F.I.R. being C.R. No.11216001210152 of 2021 registered with Adalaj Police Station, District Gandhinagar for the offences under Sections 386, 506 (2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 33 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act. 4. The case of the prosecution is since the mother of the complainant namely Ramilaben was suffering from lungs problem and his car was damaged and, he was in need of money, which hence he met the accused on that on 24.07.2019, to lend him money on interest and therefore, the applicant along with the complainant contacted the coaccused Bhurabhai Bharwad, who happened to be the friend of the applicant. It is further alleged that, the coaccused Bhurabhai gave money worth Rs.4,50,000/to the complainant and the complainant executed an agreement to sale of his land in favour of Bhurabhai. It is further alleged that after some days, the applicant gave a sum of Rs.1,10,000/to the complainant and the complainant executed one agreement to sale in favour of the applicant. It is further alleged that, thereafter, the friend of the complainant gave reference of another coaccused namely Rajubhai Rabari and that person also gave a sum of Rs.3,00,000/to the complainant on interest. It is further alleged that, on 05.02.2021, the coaccused Bhurabhai Bharwad published a public notice in the newspaper with regard to the civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.150 of 2020 instituted by the applicant for specific performance of the contract of the agreement to sale executed between the father of the complainant and the coaccused Bhurabhai. It is further alleged that, after the abovesaid incident, on 22.02.2021, the complainant and his father met Bhurabhai and the applicant for settlement of issue but somehow such settlement was not arrived at between the parties. It is further alleged that, the coaccused Bhurabhai also gave a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- to the complainant and asked father of the complainant to execute a registered sale deed of his property/land which is mentioned in the agreement to sale executed between them. It is further alleged that, the coaccused Bhurabhai also gave a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- to the complainant and asked father of the complainant to execute a registered sale deed of his property/land which is mentioned in the agreement to sale executed between them. Thus, it is alleged that the accused had lend him the money, they have demanded exorbitant amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from him by charging high interest at the rate of 10% monthly. 4.1. It is further alleged that, after the aforesaid incident, the complainant went his home and consumed poison (Allout Liquid) and therefore, the father of the complainant shifted the complainant at Amruta Hospital for treatment and thereafter, the complainant had lodged the present F.I.R. against the applicant and other two persons for the offence punishable under sections 386, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 33 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act. 5. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the dispute between the parties is in civil nature, however, the complainant is trying to convert it into the criminal nature by allegedly consuming poison (Allout Liquid). It is submitted that the conduct of the complainant speaks about a volumes with regard to cheat persons by executing various agreements to sale of his agricultural land in favour of different persons. It is further submitted that, the father of the complainant has also executed a registered agreement to sale in favour of Bindesh Vishnubhai Patel on 22.06.2020. It is further submitted that the father of the complainant also executed another registered agreement to sale in favour of Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Patel on 21.07.2020. It is further submitted that, modus of the father of the complainant and the complainant clearly shows that, they have cheated various persons like the present applicant and other coaccused by executing agreements to sale as many as approximately two registered as well as three unregistered notarized agreements. 5.1. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in fact the applicant has not lend money to the complainant and there is no proof with regard to the same. Further, it is submitted that in order to see that the agreement to sale which is entered into with the applicant and the complainant is not honoured, the F.I.R. has been registered. Further, it is submitted that in order to see that the agreement to sale which is entered into with the applicant and the complainant is not honoured, the F.I.R. has been registered. It is further submitted that the complainant and his father both had agreed to sale the land to the applicant and therefore, they had executed one agreement to sale in favour of the applicant on 04.01.2019 which was duly notarized. Learned advocate has further submitted that father of the complainant has executed agreement to sale in favour of third person with regard to very same land / property and hence, coaccused Bhurabhai has instituted Special Civil Suit No.150 of 2020 before the Civil Court and also published a public notice in the local newspaper. He has submitted that since, the complainant and his father had no intention to return the borrowed money and also have no intention to owe the agreement to sale executed by them, the present applicant have been falsely involved in the present case. It is submitted that the father of the complainant has also executed a registered agreement to sale in favour of Bindesh Vishnubhai Patel on 22.06.2020 and also executed another registered agreement to sale in favour of Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Patel on 21.07.2020 with regard to the same property and thus, the modus of the father of the complainant clearly shows that they are cheating various persons and hence, in order to escape from the liability the applicant has been wrongly involved in such offences. He has submitted that since the applicant has never lend any money to the complainant the offence under section 33 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act will not get attracted. 5.2. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. In view of above facts, learned advocate has submitted that it is crystal clear that, the present F.I.R. is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, discretionary power vested under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be exercise in favour of the applicant by enlarging him on bail by imposing suitable terms and condition in the interest of justice. 6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Paresh Darji appearing for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/and against that a written document was executed and thereafter, the applicant has charged 10% interest on the said amount and demanded Rs.2,50,00,000/. He has further submitted that the applicant is doing illegal business of lending and demanding the money and thereafter, they have threatened the complainant. He has also placed reliance on the phone call recordings with regard to the offences alleged in the FIR. Lastly, it is submitted that the present application may not be entertained and the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent– State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. She has submitted that the applicant has in fact had lend a sum of Rs.4,50,000/and charging 10% interest on the amount, which would be the against the provisions of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act and he is not holding any license for the same. She has submitted that considering the aforesaid facts, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material 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, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material 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, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. This Court has considered following aspects; (a) Prima facie the dispute pertains to sale of one land; (b) A suit has been pending against the complainant with regard to the land in question; (c) Prima facie, it appears that the agreement to sell executed between the applicant and the complainant is not honoured; the F.I.R. has been registered. (d) the case of the prosecution is premised on the documentary evidence, which are collected, hence the custodial interrogation is not necessary; (e) the applicant is not likely to abscond or misuse his liberty or hamper the investigation, This Court has also taken into consideration the law discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312 . 10. In the result, the present application is allowed. 10. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with F.I.R. being C.R. No.11216001210152 of 2021 registered with Adalaj Police Station, District Gandhinagar on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he : (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 18.06.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; and 11. Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant, if he considers it proper and just and the Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the 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 concerned 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 bail order. 12. 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 bail order. 12. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. 14. Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.