ORDER : 1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.I.H.Syed for the applicant and learned PP Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent- State. 2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R.No.11191045202201 of 2020 with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. 3. Facts of the case is as under :- 3.1. The impugned FIR is pertaining to land bearing survey no.342/2 located at Thaltej Village which the complainant inherited from his mother on 08.04.1965. 3.2. It is alleged that recently the complainant had got 7/12 records of the land checked and it came to his knowledge that said land had been sold to one M/s. Padhar & Company where he was shown as seller and the partners of M/s. Padhar and company i.e. Purshottam Revandas, Prabhudas Revandas, Kanjibhai Revandas and Lt. Revandas Kehraji were shown as purchasers of the land. 3.3. It is alleged that partners of M/s. Padhar and company and the applicant in conspiracy with each other to take away the complainant's land executed sale deed between the complainant and his wife and got the same registered with the authorities in 1975. 3.4. It is alleged that thereafter, the accused persons in connivance with each other transferred the said land to Someshwara Darshan Kheti Sahkari Mandli Ltd. in the garb of the registered sale deed between the complainant and his wife. In substance, it is alleged that since the year 1975, till date, the applicant and other accused persons in connivance and in collusion with each other hatched criminal conspiracy to grab subject land of FIR bearing survey no.342/ 2 and got executed registered sale deed which does not bear thumb impression of the first informant and in collusion with officers of the State, subject land of FIR was mutated into revenue record in favour of accused persons. Hence, FIR. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. I.H.Syed for the applicant and learned PP Mr. Mitesh Amin took the Court through various documentary evidence pertaining to subject land bearing survey no.342/2 situated at Thaltej. The gist of the same is as under :- 4.1. On 21.09.1959, by way of M.E.No.2792 (Heirship) name of Bai Kanku d/o Rupali Bawa Gajuji was mutated in the records of land bearing Survey No.342/2 at Thaltej. 4.2. Mitesh Amin took the Court through various documentary evidence pertaining to subject land bearing survey no.342/2 situated at Thaltej. The gist of the same is as under :- 4.1. On 21.09.1959, by way of M.E.No.2792 (Heirship) name of Bai Kanku d/o Rupali Bawa Gajuji was mutated in the records of land bearing Survey No.342/2 at Thaltej. 4.2. On 08.04.1965, by way of M.E.No.3252 (Heirship) name of Khodaji Visaji (complainant) s/o Bai Kanku was mutated in the records of land bearing Survey No.342/2 at Thaltej. 4.3. On 30.04.1971, since land at Sr.No.342/2 at Thaltej was a ‘New Tenure Land’ due permission to execute the sale of the land u/s 43 of the Tenancy Act was taken from the Deputy Collector vide order dated 30.04.1971. 4.4. That on 21.01.1972, complainant executed sale deed No.1048 in favour of partners of M/s. Padhar and company i.e. Parshottam Revandas and Ors. after taking above mentioned permission. 4.5. That on 09.05.1975, permission granted on 30.04.191 by the Deputy Collector was mutated in the records vide M.E.No.5027. 4.6. That on 20.09.1975, impugned land sold to Parshottam Revandas vide registered sale deed executed by the complainant was mutated in the records. 4.7. On 20.08.1975, the complainant executed a registered partition deed for himself, his wife and his minor heirs to partition the said land and his house on that land. The intention behind doing the same is best known to the complainant. 4.8. That on 22.07.1977, Revandas Kaharbhai passed away. 4.9. On 20.09.1977, by way of M.E.No.5272 (Heirship) Revandas’ name was deleted from the records and remaining three names of Parshottam Revandas and ors remained in the records of impugned land. 4.10. On 19.05.1980, partnership firm M/s. Padhar and Company was dissolved and only the names of three partners i.e. Parshottam Revandas and Ors. remained in the records of the impugned land. This was mutated in the records vide M.E.No.5486. 4.11. That on 12.10.1990, Someshwara Darshan Kheti Sahkari Mandli Ltd. got registered and came into existence for the very first time bearing registration no.KHE-3325. 4.12. That on 23.10.1992, impugned land came to be sold to the Someshwara Darshan Agricultural Co-operative Society by Parshottamdas Revandas, Prabhudas Revandas and Kanjibhai Revandas vide registered sale deed No.24172. 4.13. On 24.11.1992, sale of impugned land to Someshwara Darshan society was mutated in the records vide M.E.No.7170. 4.14. 4.12. That on 23.10.1992, impugned land came to be sold to the Someshwara Darshan Agricultural Co-operative Society by Parshottamdas Revandas, Prabhudas Revandas and Kanjibhai Revandas vide registered sale deed No.24172. 4.13. On 24.11.1992, sale of impugned land to Someshwara Darshan society was mutated in the records vide M.E.No.7170. 4.14. That on 04.02.1995, the impugned society was partitioned into two Vibhags i.e. Someshwara Darshan Kheti Sahkari Mandli Vibhag I and II by order of DDO, Co-opeartive Society, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad. The land came to be registered with Someshwara Darshan Samudayik Kheti Sahkari Ltd. Vibhag – I. This was mutated in the records vide M.E.No.8050 on 20.05.1997. 4.15. That on 09.11.1998, impugned land came to fall in residential zone and therefore, Someshwara Darshan Samusayik Kheti Sahkari Ltd. Vibhag I was converted from Agricultural Co-operative Society to Co-operative Housing Society by an order of Asst. District Registrar, Sahkari Mandli, District Panchyat vide order (PCHT/SHK/RPANTAR/V/1911-15 of 1998). This conversion from agricultural co-operative society to co-operative housing society was mutated in the records vide M.E.No.8600 dated 13.06.2001. 4.16. That on 23.07.2002, Someshwara Darshan Co-opeartive Housing Society Vibhag I was further partitioned into Vibhag III, IV and V by an order of the Asst. District Registrar, District Panchayat (PCHT/SHK/VIBHAJAN/V/10442-1048 of 2002). The impugned land came to be registered as Someshwara Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Vibhag IV. The partition was mutated in the records vide M.E.No.9250 dated 01.04.2004. 4.17. That the applicant was not a member of Mandli when land was purchased from M/s. Padhar and company and that the applicant was not even a member in Vibhag IV of Mandli and the control and management of the impugned Mandli ceased to be with the applicant since 2004. That the members of the impugned society constructed number of residential bungalows where families are residing till date. That the present land continues to reflect in the name of Someshwara Darshan Co-operative Housing Society, Vibhag IV in the 7/12 records. 4.18. That the said land fell in the Town Planning Scheme No.38 and accordingly, was allotted Final Plot No.241/3. 4.19. That on 12.03.2008, Management of the Someshwara Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vibhag IV B preferred an application to merge final plots no.241/2 and 241/3 before Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA). The same were merged by an order dated 12.03.2008. Thereafter, AUDA subsequently granted development permission Someshwara Darshan Co-op. 4.19. That on 12.03.2008, Management of the Someshwara Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vibhag IV B preferred an application to merge final plots no.241/2 and 241/3 before Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA). The same were merged by an order dated 12.03.2008. Thereafter, AUDA subsequently granted development permission Someshwara Darshan Co-op. Housing Society Vibhag IV B and in pursuance thereof, several residential bungalows were built. 4.20. That number of families residing at the bungalows built on this land have been entered in the revenue records including the details of all the loans taken by these residents as against their respective plots in the bungalows constructed on the said land and other lands. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. I.H.Syed for the applicant would submit that the applicant is 65 years old and is suffering from various aliments and now charge sheet is filed. It is further submitted that present FIR is filed after delay of about 48 years without any explanation worth the name. According to him, the complainant attempted to explain delay by stating that the complainant came to know about the status of land recently when he obtained copy of village form 7/12 through his son. He further submitted that residential address of complainant as shown in the FIR is of the same vicinity i.e. Thaltej and it is also on record that various construction activities were carried out in the subject land since 2008 and no any civil or revenue litigation has been initiated by the complainant till date. He has vehemently submitted that on 30.04.1991, permission to sale subject land of FIR under section 43 of Tenancy Act was granted by the Deputy Collector and thereafter, the complainant executed sale deed No.1048 in favour of partners of M/s Padhar and company and thereafter, mutation entry was effected in the revenue record. It is further submitted that only on 12.10.1990, Someshwara Darshan Kheti Sahkari Mandli got registered and came into existence and said erstwhile owner of the land i.e. partners of Ms/ Padhar and company executed registered sale deed No.24172 on 23.10.1992 and accordingly, said land was mutated in the revenue record vide M.E.No.7170. Thereafter, said Madli was divided into two Vibhags by order of DDO and on 09.11.1998, said land was declared residential zone and therefore, Mandli was converted from Agricultural Co-operative Society to Co-operative Housing Society by order of Asst. District Registrar, Sahakari Mandli. Thereafter, said Madli was divided into two Vibhags by order of DDO and on 09.11.1998, said land was declared residential zone and therefore, Mandli was converted from Agricultural Co-operative Society to Co-operative Housing Society by order of Asst. District Registrar, Sahakari Mandli. Necessary Mutation Entry was effected in the revenue record on 01.04.2004. Thereafter, said land came under Town Planning Scheme No.38 and accordingly was allotted Final Plot No.241/3. Lastly, it is urged that after due permission / order from competent authority, construction of various bunglows on the said land were made and by suppressing all the relevant facts, present complaint is filed and investigating agency without verifying record, filed charge sheet without any iota of evidence as to fraud. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel Mr. Syed has relied on decision in the case of Kishan Singh (Dead) through Lrs. v/s. Gurpal Singh and ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 , more particularly, para 22, which reads as under :- “22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide : Chandrapal Singh & Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh & Anr.; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. (vide : Chandrapal Singh & Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh & Anr.; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors.).” 6. At the outset, learned PP Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent State pointed out principles relating to bail and he summarized factors amongst other circumstances which are to be considered by the Court namely nature of accusation and severity of punishment in cases of conviction and nature of supporting evidence; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. After referring such factors to be kept in mind relating to bail matters, he submitted that present is an offence where the applicant created tool to garb land viz. M/s Padhar and Company and thereafter, he came into picture through Someshwara Darshan Kheti Sahkari Mandli in whose favour registered sale deed no.24172 came to be executed and registered on 23.10.1992 and thus land was mutated in the revenue record vide M.E. No.7170. 6.1. Learned PP Mr. Mitesh Amin based upon aforesaid facts would submit that despite subject land was distributed amongst family members of first informant on 20.08.1975 as per registered partition, and though permission to transfer land was granted on 30.04.1971, sale deed came to be executed and registered in the year 1972 in favour of Ms. Padhar and Company. In nutshell, learned PP urged that registered sale deed alleged to be executed by the first informant is forged one as complainant has not put his thumb impression in the year 1972 and considering the entry no.3253, 5041 it becomes abundantly clear that complainant has been defrauded. Further he also distinguished facts of the present case viz-a-viz case of Kishan Singh (Dead) v/s. Gurpal Singh and Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 cited by learned senior counsel Mr. I.H.Syed to contend that there FIR under section 482 was quashed as accused succeeded in civil litigation and thereafter, FIR was filed after delay, whereas, according to him, it is not so in the present case and therefore, case law cited at bar in the case of Kishan Singh (supra) is not helpful and not applicable to the facts of present case. Learned PP Mr. Learned PP Mr. Mitesh Amin also objected bail application on the premise that there are as many as six other offence registered against the applicant which came to be registered in the year 2020 and 2021 and therefore, considering past offence, present application may not be entertained. 7. Upon hearing submission, following picture emerges on record :- (i) Charge sheet is filed and the applicant is behind bar since 10.01.2021. (ii) It is a matter of fact that present FIR is filed after about 48 years of registration of sale deed executed in favour of M/s. Padhar and Company by the complainant on 21.01.1972. (iii) It is matter of fact that the complainant has not utter a word about the sale deed being No.24172 executed and registered on 23.10.1992. (iv) In the FIR, the complainant claims to be in possession of the subject land. The complainant alleges that Mutation Entry No.5041 dated 20.09.1975 is mutated, where he is shown as seller, but in fact he has not sold the land to said M/s Padhar and company on 20.08.1975. It is true that complainant has sold the land in the year 1972, but he has executed registered sale deed in favour of said partnership firm on 21.01.1972 vide sale deed no.1048. (v) It appears that the complainant executed sale agreement on 03.03.1971 and received sum of Rs.700 which fact is reflected on page no.7 of registered sale deed dated 21.01.1972. As said land was restricted land, said M/s. Padhar and company obtained appropriate permission under section 43 of Tenancy Act and vide order dated 30.04.1971, competent authority granted permission to sell the land and thereafter, complainant executed sale deed on 20.01.1972. (vi) The complainant has suppressed all these facts in the complaint and on the top of it, no any investigation has been made with regard to registered sale deed dated 21.01.1972 nor it is subject matter of FIR also. (vii) It appears that the applicant came into picture in the year 1992 and till then, the applicant has not played any role or any allegation is made or any material is found in the charge sheet as to fraud or played any role right from sale agreement dated 03.03.1971 to registration of sale deed on 21.01.1972 or registered partition between the first informant and his family members took place as per document registration no.12133 dated 20.08.1975. (viii) No any material / evidence is placed worth name as to having played any role from the year 1975 to 1992 till sale deed No.24172 of dated 23.10.1992 executed and registered in favour of M/s. Padhar and company. (ix) The address of the complainant in the FIR itself indicates that complainant resides in the same vicinity of the subject land and after 2008, various residential bunglows were constructed and at no point of time, the complainant raised any objection or took any legal recourse either on civil side or under revenue law or even thought it fit to file any complaint till the filing of present complaint. (x) It is a matter of fact that State has not challenged any order of permission granted by the competent authority from time to time under various laws or any revenue officer or Sub Registrar before whom registered sale deed was executed in the year 1972 / 1975 is made accused in the present proceedings. (xi) No any evidence / material is placed as to thumb impression being made in the registered sale deed dated 21.01.1972 or in partition deed dated 20.08.1975 is forged one. (xii) Learned PP opposed bail application on the premise that the applicant is involved in other six offences more particularly, described in the affidavit of IO. I have minutely examined allegations made in the FIRs. Out of six FIRs, two FIRs relates to way back to the alleged offence of the year 1987 and 1991 and in one FIR, it is stated at bar by learned advocate for the applicant that civil and revenue proceedings have attained finality. In the FIR dated 28.10.2020 relating to offence dated 01.01.2010, the High Court has stayed filing of charge sheet and also stayed the proceedings initiated under section 145 of Cr.P.C. and further restrained the police from entering into possession of rented property of the applicant and also bail is granted. In one another FIR dated 05.12.2020, which pertains to non compliance of liquidator order, the High Court has passed an order as to no coercive steps against the society. Other FIR dated 10.02.2021 pertains to non payment of remuneration to one employee in the year 2017 where all the accused are released on bail including the applicant. In one another FIR dated 05.12.2020, which pertains to non compliance of liquidator order, the High Court has passed an order as to no coercive steps against the society. Other FIR dated 10.02.2021 pertains to non payment of remuneration to one employee in the year 2017 where all the accused are released on bail including the applicant. Learned PP states at bar that the applicant is involved in one more offence registered on 16.08.2020 at the instance of his daughter in law arising out of matrimonial dispute. Looking to various FIRs annexed by the concerned Investigating Officer with the affidavit, the Court is required to consider present bail application on its merits and if the Court finds that case for bail is made out on the basis of charge sheet / material provided along with it, aspect of past antecedent becomes insignificant or irrelevant to be considered while considering present bail application. (xiii) The delay of about 48 years is not explained satisfactorily. (xiv) The applicant is aged 65 years and suffering from various aliments. (xv) All the incriminating material is in the custody of the investigating agency and therefore, there is no likelihood or possibility of tampering the evidence. (xvi) The offences alleged against the applicant are triable by Magisterial Court and considering the pendency before the concerned Magisterial Court, there is no likelihood of commencement and conclusion of trial within near future and therefore, refusal of bail will amount to pre-trial conviction, which is prohibited by law. (xvii) The applicant has deep root in the society, no apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tempering with the evidence /witnesses is expressed. (xviii) In view of above position emerging at the end of hearing, the application deserves consideration, but by imposing suitable condition to be observed by the applicant, pending investigation and trial. 8. (xvii) The applicant has deep root in the society, no apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tempering with the evidence /witnesses is expressed. (xviii) In view of above position emerging at the end of hearing, the application deserves consideration, but by imposing suitable condition to be observed by the applicant, pending investigation and trial. 8. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R.No.11191045202201 of 2020 with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicant 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] not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [d] appear before the Investigation Officer concerned, as and when required for investigation purpose and attend the Court concerned regularly. [e] furnish the present address of residence along with the proof to the I.O. concerned and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Sessions Court concerned; 9. The competent authority will release the applicant only if the applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. 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, the 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. 10. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.