ORDER : 1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing. 2. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State. 3. By way of the present application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210006200414 of 2020 registered with Dumas Police Station, District Surat for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 389, 504, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC). The kernel of the allegations leveled in the F.I.R is the plot of land being plot no.46 of Shakuntal Orchards, which was allotted in the year 1994 to accused no.1 and thereafter, the same has been subject matter of dispute between the accused and the complainant and her mother. 4. Learned Senior advocate Mr.Lakhani for learned advocate Mr.Pravin Gondaliya has submitted that the documents of disputed land which are placed on record indicate that initially in the year 1994, the co-accused Ritaben Gunvatbhai Barot, who is the sister of the present applicant, was allotted the land by the society i.e. V.K. Firm Cooperative Khethi Samuday Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vide allotment letter dated 24.05.1994. Thereafter, in the year 2006, an agreement to sale was entered into between the co-accused Ritaben Gunvatbhai Barot and the mother of the complainant. It is submitted that in the year 2020, the society allotted the said land to the applicant vide allotment letter/documents dated 24.01.2020. 4.1 It is thus submitted that after 14 years of the agreement to sale/contract dated 22.04.2006, the present FIR has been filed, alleging that though the co-accused no.1 had entered into an agreement of sale by taking ernest money, the said plot of land was got transferred/allotted in the name of accused no.2 by the society vide allotment/transfer deed dated 24.01.2020. It is further submitted that the applicant and the accused no.1 have instituted Regular Civil Suit No.249 of 2020 before the Civil Court, Surat for getting permanent injection and restraining the complainant from dispossessing the applicant, and when the complainant came to be know about the suit instituted by the applicant, as a counterblast, the FIR came to be filed. It is further submitted that the applicant and the accused no.1 have instituted Regular Civil Suit No.249 of 2020 before the Civil Court, Surat for getting permanent injection and restraining the complainant from dispossessing the applicant, and when the complainant came to be know about the suit instituted by the applicant, as a counterblast, the FIR came to be filed. 4.2 It is thus submitted that the entire dispute is civil in nature and though the civil remedy was available and is existing; the complainant has chosen to lodge the present FIR in order to exert pressure in the pending civil suit. It is further submitted that in the year 2001, more particularly, on 29.01.2002 a cheque of Rs.1,45,000/- was demanded by the complainant against her payment of Rs.60,000/-, which was given to the complainant and it was deposited by her in her account and it was also cleared. 4.3 It is thus submitted that the ingredients of sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are not established in the present case. It is further submitted that section 389 of the IPC cannot be said to be established as there is no allegation of extortion made in the complaint. Finally, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Lakhani that the applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation and she has reported on 10 occasions on 12.11.2020, 13.11.2020, 19.11.2020, 20.11.2020, 30.11.2020, 06.01.2021, 04.03..2021, 09.03.2021, 05.04.2021 and 26.05.2021 before the Investigating Officer. 4.4 It is further submitted, on instructions, that the applicant is also ready and willing to give voice sample for voice spectography for the alleged allegation of threats on phone, which is recorded by the complainant. Thus, it is submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and the present application may be allowed. 5. 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 her 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. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted bail. 6. 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. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted bail. 6. A fortiorari, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent– State has opposed grant of bail, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP, while placing reliance on the report of the Investigating Officer, which is tendered today, has submitted about the complicity of the applicant in the offence. She has submitted that the investigation reveals that the applicant has threatened the complainant lady and it appears that the accused have accepted the amount of Rs.51,00,000/-, as consideration for the aforesaid plot. It is submitted that further investigation reveals that the circle value i.e. jantri value of the said plot is of Rs.1,72,80,000/- and the sale deed was executed based on the trivial incomplete consideration value of Rs.1,25,000/-, which was paid in the year 1994. 6.1 It is further submitted that the investigation reveals that the present accused has sold the plot to one Kartikey Sharma, who is the owner of the I-T.V. Media Channel for Rs.1,00,00,000/- by entering into an agreement. It is stated that the accused was also summoned on 04.03.2021, as per Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 calling upon her to produce such agreement to sale. It is also submitted by learned APP from the affidavit, which is filed by the Investigation Officer, that the presence of the applicant is required to give her voice sample for the threat, which has been recorded by the complainant on her mobile. Thus, it is submitted the that custodial interrogation is necessary, in view of the above facts. 7. While supporting the submissions advanced by the learned APP, learned advocate Dr.Sonia Hurra appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the present application. She has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the complainant. She has submitted that the applicant is a high profile lady and she is working as Promoter in Media Channel. 7. While supporting the submissions advanced by the learned APP, learned advocate Dr.Sonia Hurra appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the present application. She has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the complainant. She has submitted that the applicant is a high profile lady and she is working as Promoter in Media Channel. She has submitted that in the year 1994, the society had illegally allotted the plot of the land to the co-accused Ritaben Gunvantbhai Barot and thereafter, in the year 2006, the said co-accused Ritaben had entered into an agreement to sale on 22.04.2006 with her mother Manjulaben Pravainchand Parekh. She has also referred to the recent allotment letter/document dated 24.01.2020 executed by the society, by which the said land is allotted to the applicant by her sister co-accused Ritaben, who was originally allotted the land. She submitted that in fact the applicant has cheated her mother, who is aged about 86 years, and is a senior citizen by creating false and fabricated affidavit and false registered sale deed dated 22.04.2006 of the said farm house owned by her mother. It is submitted that her mother was also threatened by the applicant and such conversation was also recorded on her mobile phone. It is also stated by her that the applicant and the co-accused being their neighbours, had full knowledge and information that her mother Manjulaben had gone to Chicago, U.S.A. and she was also out of India from 14.01.2020 to 20.02.2020 and behind their back the aforesaid false and fabricated documents of ownership was created. It is also submitted that Shri Surendranath, who is the Secretary of the Society, who has executed allotment/transfer deed on 24.01.2021 in the name of applicant has in fact also registered the FIR against the applicant alleging that such allotment of the plot was done under the threat issued by the applicant. It is submitted by her that the complainant is still in possession and the watchman and the caretaker were also threatened by the applicant. Thus, it is submitted that looking to the conduct of the applicant, the present application may be rejected. 8. The Court has perused the documents and also heard the learned advocates for the parties at length. It is submitted by her that the complainant is still in possession and the watchman and the caretaker were also threatened by the applicant. Thus, it is submitted that looking to the conduct of the applicant, the present application may be rejected. 8. The Court has perused the documents and also heard the learned advocates for the parties at length. After 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 bail to the applicant. 8.1 The entire dispute stems out from the allotment letter dated 24.05.1994, which was issued by society concerned to the co-accused Ritaben G. Barot i.e. sister of the applicant allotting plot no.46 of Shakuntal Orchards. The documents further reveal that thereafter agreement to sale dated 22.04.2006 was entered into between the co-accused Ritaben G. Barot in favour of Manjulaben Pravinchandra Parekh i.e. mother of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that despite the aforesaid agreement to sale, vide allotment letter dated 24.01.2020, the Society had further allotted the plot to the applicant from her sister-accused no.1. It is also alleged that at the relevant time, in the year 2006, when the agreement to sale dated 22.04.2006 was executed, the complainant had paid full consideration to the applicant and the co- accused, however, the actual sale deed was not further executed. Thereafter, further allotment was done by the Society in the year 2020 and the plot was transferred from the accused no.1 to the applicant-accused no.2. From the allotment document dated 24.01.2020, it is revealed that one Surendrabhai Shanitlal Sheth appears to have executed the documents as a Secretary and the Official Representatives of Aagam Green Valley Cooperative Society. The said document reveals the history of the transaction and it is specifically stated that on 24.05.1994, the said plot of the land was allotted to the co-accused Ritaben after payment of the requisite amount and fees. 8.2 It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant has forged the signature of Shri Surendrabhai Shanitlal Sheth in the allotment letter dated 24.01.2020. 8.2 It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant has forged the signature of Shri Surendrabhai Shanitlal Sheth in the allotment letter dated 24.01.2020. It appears that Regular Civil Suit No.249 of 2020 is also instituted by the applicant against the complainant before the Civil Court, Surat seeking permanent injunction and restraining the complainant from forcing them to vacate the plot land. Thus, primary the dispute appears to be a civil nature and both the applicant and complainant are claiming possession of the plot. It is also not denied that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation and has remained present as and when she was summoned on 10 occasions, as referred hereinabove. The applicant has also shown willingness for further cooperation and is ready and willing to give voice samples for spectography test. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has considered the following aspects; (a) There appears to be delay, as the allegations primarily circle around the agreement to sale executed on 22.04.2006; (b) Prima facie it appears that the dispute is civil in nature; (c) Prima facie considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage; (d) The applicant has cooperated with the investigation and is also further willing to cooperate; (e) A Civil Suit is pending for the subject property. 10. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312 . 11. In the result, the present application is allowed. 10. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312 . 11. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210006200414 of 2020 registered with Dumas Police Station, District Surat on her executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that she : (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 01.07.2021 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 her 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 her 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. 12. Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant, if she 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. 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. 13. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 14. 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. 15. 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.