JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this batch of applications, the applicant - original complainant has prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail which has been granted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand dated 22.07.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1104 of 2017, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand dated 11.04.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.427 of 2019 and by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand dated 22.07.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1108 of 2017 to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.20475 of 2017, respondent No.2 in Criminal Misc. Application No.12637 of 2019 and respondent No.2 in Criminal Misc. Application No.20478 of 2017 respectively. 2. Since the background of the facts and grievance appearing to be almost similar, with the joint request of learned advocates, these three applications have been taken up together since common submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides and as such the facts are taken up from Criminal Misc. Application No.20475 of 2017. 3. The present applicant had purchased the land situated in Sim of Khambhat Taluka, Revenue Survey No.80, 159/1, 162/1, 976, 993, 995, 999 and 962 from one Shantilal Maganlal Patel and accordingly, entry said to have been mutated. The respondents - accused persons said to have fabricated pedhinama/genealogy of Shantilal Patel wherein they have shown Piyushbhai Shantilal Patel as the sole heir and forged his signature while not showing two other original heirs and revenue entry has also been made being Entry No.4790. On the basis of that, the accused got approved the same from learned Mamlatdar on 23.06.2016 and then though the succession certificate was ordered to be obtained, still a bogus pedhinama on the basis of false affidavit was created and accused No.4 has signed as a witness in the said affidavit which has indicated that there are four legal heirs of Shantilal Patel. These accused persons, according to assertion of the complainant, were knowing that these agricultural fields were belonging to Shardaben, Meenaben, Bhupendrabhai still a false power of attorney got created by accused No.2 and by forging signature, a sale document has been affected in favour of accused No.1 and later on with a view to usurp the land in question, these accused persons inter se with their aid and assistance have executed a sale document on 03.02.2015 and then got mutated in revenue record as Entry No.4822 which led the proceedings before the learned Deputy Collector. By narrating the sequence of events, when the successive sale has taken place, the applicant side has consulted a private hand-writing expert and got the opinion on two occasions as a cross-verification and the said opinions were obtained on 29.12.2016 as well as 30.12.2016. According to applicant, during pendency of revenue proceedings with regard to the entry in questions accused No.1 - Ashwinibhai Kantibhai Patel filed false affidavit by forging signature of Piyushbhi Shantilal Patel and also shown false pedigree/genealogy by only showing three legal heirs in fact there were five legal heirs. On the contrary, the power of attorney in favour of accused No.5 i.e. Manubhai Bhupatbhai Chauhan is said to have been executed by Nutunben, Madhuben, Sushilaben and Piyushbhai, the same is also forged one and according to the applicant, even on that count also, hand-writing expert's opinion has indicated that said power of attorney is also forged. In fact the accused - Manubhai, whose signature appears to be in power of attorney, executed abroad, wherein Madhuben was not at all having a passport also and as such, the entire power of attorney has been forged with an intent to play fraud with the complainants. 3.1 It is the case of the applicant that though repeated requests were made before the police authorities, the authorities were not registering the complaint and as such, the applicant was constrained to approach this Court by way of Special Criminal Application No.2677 of 2017 inter alia praying for registration of FIR and pursuant to the issuance of direction by this Court, an FIR came to be registered being C.R.No.I-33 of 2017 before Khambhat (Rural) Police Station on 02.07.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 181, 193, 199, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the said FIR, the respondent Nos. Pursuant to the said FIR, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of present application have preferred an application for seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the said application was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No.1104 of 2017 before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand who by way of an order dated 22.07.2017 was pleased to allow the application by imposing suitable terms and conditions and it is this order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is made the subject matter of present application for seeking cancellation thereof. The present application is relating to cancellation of bail in respect of opponent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Chauhan Manubhai Bhupatbhai and Chauhan Rajnibhai Bhupatbhai. 3.2 Insofar as Criminal Misc. Application No.20478 of 2017 is concerned, in a similar situation the respondent No.2 has been granted anticipatory bail by the very same order dated 22.07.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1108 of 2017 and on the very same background, the present Criminal Misc. Application is filed for seeking cancellation of such anticipatory bail granted to respondent - accused Jigarkumar Navneetbhai Patel. 3.3 Same is the case with Criminal Misc. Application No.12637 of 2019, in which also, the complainant has filed application for seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 i.e. Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel on 11.04.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.427 of 2019. In this case, facts are slightly different but the same is arising out of very same FIR i.e. C.R.No.I-33 of 2017 and as such the same is tagged with present two applications and accordingly, these three applications have been requested to be heard together and accordingly, same are taken up for its common hearing. 4. Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant - original complainant has vehemently contended that while exercising the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Court below has not properly examine the issue and rather ignored the report of Investigating Officer. Further while exercising the discretion, no proper reasons have been assigned and considering even the past history, the discretion ought not to have been exercised. The learned Sessions Judge while exercising the discretion has not considered even the conduct of the accused persons of Criminal Misc. Further while exercising the discretion, no proper reasons have been assigned and considering even the past history, the discretion ought not to have been exercised. The learned Sessions Judge while exercising the discretion has not considered even the conduct of the accused persons of Criminal Misc. Application No.47 of 2017 immediately after the lodging of First Information Report on 02.07.2017 and despite the specific allegations having been made on the basis of which even disqualification has taken place, such material has not been properly examined by the Court below which has vitiated the very exercise of such discretion. According to Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate, the learned Session Judge ought to have appreciated that these accused persons are having antecedent and some of them are even absconding, the learned Session Judge in a routine manner could not have exercised the discretion. By referring to two decisions, Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has submitted that if there is a history of crime, the same aspect is a relevant consideration for exercising powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and for that purpose, the learned advocate has referred to AIR 2022 SC 1524 and (2008) 13 SCC 584 . After referring to the contents of the First Information Report as well as the reports of hand-writing experts, a grievance is raised by Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate that the discretion has not been properly exercised and on the contrary, a prima facie opinion is projected as if the hand-writing expert's opinion is not believable. Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has as such requested the Court to cancel the order passed by the learned Court below. 4.1 Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has further referred to the decisions reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67908 as well as 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67864 and few other decisions to canvas that in the peculiar background of present facts, the order of anticipatory bail deserves to be quashed. Further, Mr. 4.1 Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has further referred to the decisions reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67908 as well as 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67864 and few other decisions to canvas that in the peculiar background of present facts, the order of anticipatory bail deserves to be quashed. Further, Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has then referred to the decision delivered by the Additional Development Commissioner and thereby submitted that upon close security, even the allegations which are mentioned in the complaint, prima facie having found to be established, even proceedings have been allowed to be concluded which were initiated against one of the parties under Section 57(1) of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 and for arriving at such conclusion, even the Additional Development Commissioner found that the report prepared by the Taluka Development Officer, Khambhat is proper and as such Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has submitted that when such kind of situation is prevailing wherein a safe conclusion prima facie can be arrived at about commission of crime, there is hardly any reason available for the learned Sessions Judge to just grant anticipatory bail more particularly, when other accused persons are absconding. Be that as it may, Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has submitted that this is not a fit case in which Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be easily resorted to. 4.2 Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has further submitted that all these background has well been project before the learned Sessions Judge but a bare look at the order would clearly indicate that such aspects have not been gone in to in their proper prospective and as such the manner in which the discretion has been exercised is not just and proper. Hence, under the circumstance, the order passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed by granting relief as prayed for in the respective applications. Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate has submitted that when the pedhinama/genealogy have been prima facie found to be fictitious with the aid and assistance of forged power of attorney when the subject land has been transacted for securing undue benefit such fraudulent act cannot be liberally considered. Hence, these activities will have a different adverse impact on the society, and therefore, such kind of elements are required to be dealt with, with heavy hand. Hence, he has requested the Court to grant the application by setting aside the order impugned in the applications. 5. Hence, these activities will have a different adverse impact on the society, and therefore, such kind of elements are required to be dealt with, with heavy hand. Hence, he has requested the Court to grant the application by setting aside the order impugned in the applications. 5. As against this, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP appearing on behalf of the prosecution has submitted that though the State has not filed any application for cancellation of such order but on the basis of order itself, it transpires that the reasons assigned are not just and proper in fact one of the accused persons never gone to abroad and wife of one of the accused happened to be the Sarpanch, a systematic design has been adopted to grab the land. In fact, according to Mr. Dave, learned APP such kind of similar 4 to 5 cases of such nature in which some of the respondent - accused persons got involved themselves in fact in a breach of conditions, one of the main accused persons Ashwinbhai after getting anticipatory bail went abroad. This conduct itself is quite eloquent enough to suggest that the discretion exercised by the Court below deserves to be corrected. As per the information given by Investigating Officer to the learned APP, it has been observed that for want of presence of the main accused persons, the investigation has not been progressed further and for issuance of look out notice/circular for securing presence of Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel has been undertaken and has submitted that since some of the accused persons are not available the further investigation has not taken place and in absence thereof, even charge-sheet has not been able to be filed and by reporting to, the Court such kind of state of affairs of complaint in question a copy of report dated 04.05.2022 is tendered on record and the learned APP has requested that in such a serious crime, the discretion exercised by the Court below deserves to be corrected and the order requires to be set aside. 6. As against this, Mr. 6. As against this, Mr. Shailesh C. Sharma, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent accused has submitted that the direction which has been exercised way back in the year 2017 may not be disturbed at this stage of proceeding especially when the case is based upon documentary evidence and after proper security of such documents, the learned Sessions Judge has exercised the discretion. It has been vehemently contended by Mr. Sharma, learned advocate that the learned Sessions Judge has not only considered the material gathered by Investigating Officer which was projected by way of affidavit contesting the applications but has also considered the pendency of three independent suits before the competent courts and only thereafter the discretion has been exercised by assigning cogent reasons. According to Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, the impugned order is not suffering from any lack of application of mind nor any lack of consideration of material on record and as such in the absence of any perversity, the order in question may not be disturbed. According to Mr. Sharma, learned advocate on the contrary there is a gross delay in lodging the complaint, the date of offence said to have occurred is of 23.06.2016 whereas FIR has been lodged on 02.07.2017. Further, even if the allegations leveled in the FIR are to be taken on its face value then also prima facie no offence as alleged is reflecting to have committed. 6.1 Additionally, Mr. Sharma, learned advocate has been submitted that the State/prosecution has neither filed any application for cancellation of anticipatory bail nor it is the case based upon any violation of conditions of anticipatory bail and as such in the absence of such, simply because the discretion has been exercised, which is not suitable to the complainant, such discretion may not be set at naught by setting aside the order. In fact a perusal of this entire material would go to show that center of controversy is the original accused No.1 and no other persons have secured any benefit nor any benefit is passed on to them. In fact, accused No.1 has absconded himself, leaving behind three civil suits pending for adjudications. Hence, in such a peculiar circumstance, it cannot be said that any case is made out to cancel the anticipatory bail once it has been granted. Mr. In fact, accused No.1 has absconded himself, leaving behind three civil suits pending for adjudications. Hence, in such a peculiar circumstance, it cannot be said that any case is made out to cancel the anticipatory bail once it has been granted. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate has also submitted that in fact the order which is sought to be canceled is of the year 2017, the applications have not been prosecuted promptly by the applicant and now after much passage of time having been elapsed and attempt is made to press the applications. Hence, when conditions engrafted in the order are not violated by any of the accused, the anticipatory bail once granted cannot be canceled in such a routine manner. Hence, considering the well settled proposition, on the issue, Mr. Sharma, learned advocate has submitted that keeping in view the principle propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of cancellation of anticipatory bail, the complainant herein has not made out any distinguishable case which may warrant setting aside of the impugned order in the peculiar background of fact when the facts are so complex and prima facie the civil proceedings are very much pending, simply because allegations are leveled about forgery, the anticipatory bail which has been granted way back in the year 2017 may not be canceled. Hence, he has requested not to entertain present applications. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, following circumstances deserves consideration before coming to ultimate conclusion on the controversy involved in the present case. 8. From the report, which has been submitted by Investigating Officer dated 04.05.2022, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP has referred to and the same was placed on record at the time of hearing. From the said report, it is revealed that the original document as well as power of attorney and pedhinama/genealogy when asked for from Mamlatdar office, Khambhat were not found and during the inquiry, it is revealed that the same are with original accused Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel. From the said report, it is revealed that the original document as well as power of attorney and pedhinama/genealogy when asked for from Mamlatdar office, Khambhat were not found and during the inquiry, it is revealed that the same are with original accused Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel. It has also been found that the pedhinama, which have been signed by the respective person of the year 2014 to 2016 the complainant obtained hand-writing expert's opinion and the said hand-writing opinion is revealing that substantial signatures in numbers were signed by one person only and who is that one person is still to be investigated and inquired into. It has also been stated that majority of accused persons are in foreign country and as such their signature and hand-writing expert's opinion still to be obtained and the documents are required to be recovered. It has also been found that original accused No.1 - Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel has left the country and other accused persons are also still to be arrested and for that lookout circular is in contemplation to be issued and it has been shown helplessness by the Investigating Officer that for want of accused persons, the investigation has not been processed any further and charge-sheet has not been possible to be filed. This is the state affairs in the present proceedings. 9. In furtherance of aforesaid circumstance if the facts are seen, the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 80, 159/1, 162/1, 962, 976, 993, 995 and 999 of mouje Kanisa village was originally belonged to Shantilal Maganlal Patel who sold it to Dayabhai Shanabhai Patel by sale document No.1558/1978 on 17.08.1978 and since then the land remained with Dayabhai Shanabhai Patel and from that time the legal heirs are Shardaben, Meenaben and Bhupendrabhai and it is the allegation that despite the aforesaid situation, in connivance with each other, the respondent accused persons have created a bogus pedhinama and power of attorney and by putting fictitious signatures, created the documents by administering criminal breach of trust and cheating. In this process, as per the preliminary investigation, material projected has revealed that accused Jigar Navneetbhai Patel though knowing fully well about the ownership of land in question, and the legal heirs of owner have put the signature on the registered documents No.843/2015 and in connivance got mutated in the revenue record and thereby attempted to grab the land which otherwise is not belonging. Same is the allegation on one accused Manubhai Bhupatbhai Chauhan who also stood as a panch in the pedhinama signed as such on a pedhinama on 22.07.2016 and got power of attorney of without date or undated power of attorney and thereby committed a serious offence. In this process, it has further been revealed that despite the legal heirs who were available, the accused person Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel got pedhinama of Shantilal Maganlal Patel on 27.01.2015 though the said lands in question were sold by Shantilal Maganlal Patel to Dayabhai Shanabhai Patel on 17.08.1978. In furtherance of this conduct after preparing a bogus pedhinama dated 27.01.2015, a power of attorney was secured and further pedhinama dated 22.07.2016 was prepared by showing Pushpaben as wife of Shantilal Maganlal Patel, Grishmaben, Nutunben, Bindraben as the daughters and Piyushbhai as son of Shantilal and thereby created pedhinama and later on power of attorney was prepared in the name of Piyushbhai Shantilal Patel, giving power to Sheelaben Piyushbhai Patel and on that basis original accused Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel secured registered sale document No.228 of 2015 in his name and got the transaction mutated in revenue record. A serious attempt is made to siphon away the land from the original owners and their legal heirs. A serious attempt is made to siphon away the land from the original owners and their legal heirs. On account of this serious conduct, the objections have been raised by the complainant, but the police authorities were not adhering to as a result of this, it appears that a Special Criminal Application No.2677 of 2017 was filed inter alia requesting to issue direction upon police authority to lodge the First Information Report on account of such serious conduct and fraud being practiced and after perusal of the case, it appears that the direction was issued upon police authority to register FIR against the accused persons and in furtherance of such direction, the complaint came to be registered as C.R.No.I- 33 of 2017 on 02.07.2017 before Khambhat (Rural) Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 181, 193, 199, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The said direction, issued by this Court, the order dated 17.04.2017 passed in Special Criminal Application No.2677 of 2017 is reproduced hereunder:- "By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has a grievance to redress as regards the inaction on the part of the police authority in not registering the First Information Report pursuant to the complaint lodged by him in writing dated 27th March 2017 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Anand, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 181, 193, 199, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Police Inspector, Khambhat (Rural) Police Station, District Anand, is directed to take into consideration the complaint filed by the petitioner in writing (Annexure-A to this petition) and after going through the same, take a decision, whether the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence or not. After taking into consideration the complaint and other materials, if any, the Police Inspector is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then appropriate directions be issued for registration of the FIR forthwith at the concerned Police Station. However, the Police Inspector, after going through the materials, is of the view that no case is made out for registration of the FIR, then in such circumstances, he shall inform the petitioner in writing about the same by assigning reasons in brief, within a period of four weeks from today. However, the Police Inspector, after going through the materials, is of the view that no case is made out for registration of the FIR, then in such circumstances, he shall inform the petitioner in writing about the same by assigning reasons in brief, within a period of four weeks from today. With the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merits of the matter. For any reason, if the police authorities refuse to register the FIR, it shall be open for the petitioner to avail of the remedy under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Direct service is permitted." 10. In the aforesaid observations, it was clearly indicated that if the police authority is finding that no case is made out the same shall be intimated to the petitioner but then it has been appeared on record that police authority found some substance in the grievance of the petitioner and as such having satisfied that the conduct discloses commission of cognizable offence, the aforementioned FIR has been registered. 11. From the record and assertion, it appears that against the said filing of FIR, one of the prime accused Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel appears to have submitted a petition for seeking quashment of the complaint which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No.11812 of 2018 before this Court, but the same appears to have been withdrawn and it is in this background of facts, the accused persons appeared to have submitted their respective applications for seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 12. From the record, it further appears that a specific detail objections were submitted by the complainant before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Anand in Criminal Misc. From the record, it further appears that a specific detail objections were submitted by the complainant before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Anand in Criminal Misc. Application No.1104 of 2017 opposing the grant of anticipatory bail and such detail objections also reflects that the wife of one of the accused persons named as Manubhai Bhupatbhai Chauhan who was discharging in his duty as upsarpanch and was removed by initially steps under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 and after perusing the detail conduct of the said accused persons, on account of serious act of mishandling and tampering with the record of panchayat has been removed and which removal has been affirmed by the Additional Development Commissioner and from the reading of the said order, it has been clearly found that the said accused person is also having a cloudy character as a upsarpanch. The copy of the said order is already attached at Annexure-D in the main application i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No.12637 of 2019 dated 04.01.2013. One further revealing circumstance which is eye catching is that the respondent No.2 i.e. accused mentioned in Criminal Misc. Application No.12637 of 2019 is having criminal antecedent of such a nature and was also having a habit of creating forged document and material thing which further appears to have been ignored is that the fact of withdrawal of quashing petition either appears to have been not dealt with or it might have been suppressed from the Court. From the over all material on record, prima facie, allegation of criminal conspiracy is relating to create a forged power of attorney, as well as false pedigree and it was also specifically projected before the learned trial court in the affidavit that the said forged power of attorney was created on 04.04.2015 and on the very same day three other powers of attorney have been executed and signatures of the executors are questionable and a private hand-writing expert's opinion has reveled that all signatures are made by one person of the power of attorney said to have been made by Sushilaben, Madhuben and Nutunben. The signature of Piyushbhai who said to have executed power of attorney is forged by original accused No.1 and on the basis of said forged power of attorney a registered sale document appears to have been executed bearing registration No.843 of 2015. The signature of Piyushbhai who said to have executed power of attorney is forged by original accused No.1 and on the basis of said forged power of attorney a registered sale document appears to have been executed bearing registration No.843 of 2015. A further fact which ought to have been noticed by the learned trial Judge is that yet another power of attorney which is executed on 04.04.2015 in favour of accused No.1 to 4 at New York, USA, but in fact, according to assertion, the accused No.4 does not have even a passport. Now all these glaring circumstances, which are revealing from the record and specifically pointed out, the learned trial Judge extended the protection of anticipatory bail in such a planned alleged offence. 13. During the course of submission, it has also been projected before the Court that after securing anticipatory bail on 11.04.2019 one of the accused person i.e. Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel who was supposed to cooperate with the investigation and to remain present before the police station but instead has runaway and at present not available in the country and it is on account of he being not available, the process is not getting concluded. 14. In the light of aforesaid circumstances more particularly when some of the accused persons are having criminal antecedent of such nature and after the observations made by earlier Bench, a substantive complaint has been registered for such serious offences. The learned trial Judge i.e. learned Sessions Judge while exercising the discretion ought to have taken extra care. 15. In the light of aforesaid circumstances when it was noticed that wife of Manubhai happened to be sarpanch there were serious allegation of tampering with even panchayat record and just to thwart the process a shelter of Civil Court is taken by the accused persons to indicate that the offence is of a civil nature and since the civil suits are pending anticipatory bail deserves to be granted. Now from the order, it appears that substantially what has weighed with learned Sessions Judge is that the complainant though processed his grievance before the revenue as well as the civil proceedings has not got succeeded and as such the complaint is filed and on that basis, the learned Session Judge has extended the protection of anticipatory bail. In respect of Criminal Misc. In respect of Criminal Misc. Application No.12637 of 2019 while granting anticipatory bail to opponent No.2 accused what has been weighed is that Civil Court has not granted any interim relief and the ownership rights are still not decided and as such attempt is made to convert civil grievance in the form of criminal complaint. So the substantial reason which has been assigned in this order is that grievance voiced out by the complainant is a matter of evidence for which a custodial interrogation is not required and further in two other applications i.e. Criminal Misc. Applications No.1104/2017 and 1108/2017 the anticipatory bail protection was granted and as such by giving parity to this accused, order came to be passed which is questioned before this Court. A relevant fact which cannot be unnoticed is that on the basis of such brief order, on the ground of parity, the conditions have been imposed upon to remain present before the Investigating Officer on 13.05.2019 and to deposit the passport in the Court and not to leave the India without prior permission and in utter breach of these conditions, it has been projected that respondent No.2 has flee away from the country and this fact has been fortified by the report submitted by Investigating Officer dated 04.05.2022, and placed on record by the learned APP in the present proceedings. 16. From the aforesaid assertion and material though prima facie an attractive submission has been made by the learned advocate for respondent accused that grievance and complaint is of a civil nature and as such whatever protection has been granted is justified but the same is not of worthy acceptance. The reason is that on earlier occasion when the complainant approached this Court a clear observation was made by the coordinate Bench, the then, in which it was directed to examine as to whether cognizable offence is committed or not and then only the complaint will be filed and a liberty was also reserved that in case no offence is found by police authority then the same shall be intimated to the petitioner. Keeping these observations in mind, it appears that Investigating Officer found substance in the grievance of the petition and as such a substantive criminal complaint is filed. Keeping these observations in mind, it appears that Investigating Officer found substance in the grievance of the petition and as such a substantive criminal complaint is filed. Hence, simply because with respect to controversy about land, if civil suits are filed, the same cannot be a ground to just exercise discretion in casual manner to extend anticipatory bail protection without examining other aspects related to it and therefore, the decision making process and the manner in which the discretion deserves to be exercised is a question for consideration in the present proceedings. 17. At this stage, the Court is not supposed to analyze, examine or conclude on merits but prima facie the eye catching circumstances related to the complaint cannot be ignored and as such what has been discussed above is indicating that the learned Sessions Judge while exercising discretion has not dealt with such objection/material which has already been projected before him and as such prima facie, it appears that while dealing with Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. application the material circumstance appears to have not been dealt with at all. Non dealing of materials touching to the controversy also reflects perversity in recording reasons. 18. It is further not digestable to accept the submission of learned advocate appearing for the respondent that there is a gross delay in lodging the FIR. According to him, the date of offence is on 23.06.2016 whereas FIR came to be filed on 02.07.2017 but this submission is outrightly not possible to be accepted in view of the fact that initially the complainant has approached time and again before the police authority and even gave a complaint on 23.03.2017 but it is only thereafter the complainant was constrained to approach this Court by way of Special Criminal Application No.2677 of 2017 and as such in action on the part of police authority cannot be attributed to the complainant for causing any delay. In fact even the Court on previous occasion found proper enough to issue direction in the said Special Criminal Application and as such disposed of on 17.04.2017 and then after taking note of observations contained in the order and having gone through the material, it was found that cognizable offence is said to have been committed and therefore substantive complaint is filed and as such it is not possible to accept the submission of learned advocate for the opponent that there is some delay. In fact in such a serious offence there appears to be a serious in action on the part of the authority in not promptly reacting to the grievance voiced out by the complainant before it. It further appears that there is a serious discrepancy about the signatures and two private handwriting experts' opinion have opined that majority signatures have been done by single person and that is a matter of serious investigation which deserves to be undertaken promptly. Now all these issues which were though very much available before the Court below, it appears that in a casual manner by just projecting as if it is a civil nature, all these allegations and attributions have been ignored and as such the orders suffers from the vice of non application of mind as well. In addition to it, the coordinate bench has already observed that police inspector is to examine as to whether the grievance disclose commission of a cognizable punishable offence or not and liberty was also reserved that in case no such offence is made out then petitioner shall be informed in writing after assigning reason and as such it does not appear that without examining allegations, in a casual manner complaint is filed. It does not further appears that complaint has no element of the offences which are already alleged and if the allegations leveled are to be taken note of as it is, then also a serious offence prima facie is made out and that is the reason why even petition for quashing also appears to have not been entertained as indicated above. When that be so, it was not open for the learned Session Judge to ignore all these material aspects though pointed out and to exercise discretion in such a manner. When that be so, it was not open for the learned Session Judge to ignore all these material aspects though pointed out and to exercise discretion in such a manner. No doubt powers are always available but such powers are always coupled with a conscious duty not to ignore such things which may affect the decision making process. It further appears that there is an abuse of the condition imposed upon by the Court especially by one of the accused Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel who got himself the land in question and runaway outside the India and these other accused persons even according to prima facie investigation has revealed that all have acted and taken active part in creating false and fabricated documents to ultimately squandered away the land. Hence, this gross abuse also appears to be a relevant circumstance which ought not to have been ignored by the court below. The prima facie reading of the order clearly suggest that these material aspects have not been properly gone into while exercising discretion. 19. A conjoint effect of aforesaid discretion and the report of the Investigating Officer of May, 2022 reflects that prima facie offence which has been alleged deserves thorough investigation and looking to the contents of the report, it appears to this Court that these accused persons are not entitled to have any protection of anticipatory bail since investigation is left halfway, looking to the serious of offence alleged, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. at this stage of the proceedings and in considered opinion of this Court the learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in passing the order impugned in the manner in which it has been passed and as such also, the order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 20. No doubt the learned Sessions Judge is enjoyed with discretion and power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to extend anticipatory bail but while exercising such discretion the relevant circumstance ought not to have been ignored. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court has guided as to how such powers to be exercised and what would be the parameters. Even for cancellation of bail once having been granted what would be the relevant circumstance for canceling is also well propounded by cantena of decisions. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court has guided as to how such powers to be exercised and what would be the parameters. Even for cancellation of bail once having been granted what would be the relevant circumstance for canceling is also well propounded by cantena of decisions. Few of such, the Court deems it proper to consider, hence, relevant observations are quoted hereunder:- (i) In the case of Neeru Yadav versus State of U.P. decided on 16.12.2014 while dealing with such case the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed on the concept of liberty. The relevant paragraph 16 deserves to be quoted hereunder:- "16. The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law." (ii) Further in case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 28, 33, 34 and 35, which deserves to be reproduced hereunder:- "28. The CBI has pointed out that the investigation is in progress in respect of the above said group of companies. In the Status Report, the CBI has highlighted a number of details about the nexus of the appellant along with those companies. Since the investigation is still under progress in respect of those companies, we are not highlighting all those details furnished by the CBI in the Status Report. 33. On going into all the details furnished by the CBI in the form of Status Report and the counter affidavit dated 06.05.2013 sworn by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Chief Investigating Officer, Hyderabad, without expressing any opinion on the merits, we feel that at this stage, the release of the appellant (A-1) would hamper the investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidence. Though it is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant is in no way connected with the persons in power, we are of the view that the apprehension raised by the CBI cannot be lightly ignored considering the claim that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and the prime conspirator in huge monetary transactions. 34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. 34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." (iii) Yet another decision of the recent time in the case of Ashwini Kumar Patra versus Republic of India reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Orissa 438 the observations contained in the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:- "9. xxx 35. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations." In case of Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), it is held as follows:- "5.......The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white colour crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest". 10. 10. Law is well settled that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken for grant of bail. The Court has to indicate in the bail order, reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence." (iv) Yet another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) versus State of Gujarat and another reported in (2008) 13 SCC 584 also has observed the relevant consideration about cancellation of bail. The said observations contained in paragraphs 23, 25 and 26 are reproduced hereunder:- "23. Even though the re-appreciation of the evidence as done by the Court granting bail is to be avoided the Court dealing with an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) can consider whether irrelevant materials were taken into consideration. That is so because it is not known as to what extent the irrelevant materials weighed with the Court for accepting the prayer for bail. 25. The perversity as highlighted in Puran's case (supra) can also flow from the fact that as noted above irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration adding vulnerability to the order granting bail. The irrelevant materials should be of a substantial nature and not of a trivial nature. In the instant case, the trial Court seems to have been swayed by the fact that Sohrabuddin, husband of Kausarbi had shady reputation and criminal antecedents. That was not certainly a factor which was to be considered while granting bail. It was nature of the acts which ought to have been considered. By way of illustration, it can be said that the accused cannot take a plea while applying for bail that the person whom he killed was hardened criminal. That certainly is not a factor which can be taken into account. Another significant factor which was highlighted by the State before the High Court was that an FIR allegedly was filed to divert attention from the fake encounter. The same was not lodged by the Gujarat Police. 26. Once it is found that bail was granted on untenable grounds, same can be cancelled. Another significant factor which was highlighted by the State before the High Court was that an FIR allegedly was filed to divert attention from the fake encounter. The same was not lodged by the Gujarat Police. 26. Once it is found that bail was granted on untenable grounds, same can be cancelled. The stand that there was no supervening circumstance has no relevance in such a case." (v) Further the entire law on the issue relating to grant or rejection of bail is well propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamla Devi versus State of Rajasthan and another reported in AIR 2022 SC 1524 since the said decision has taken note of previous case laws as well, the Court deems it proper to reproduce the relevant paragraphs hereunder:- "14. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court: i) In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. – [ (2004) 7 SCC 528 ], this Court held that although it is established that a Court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of the evidence and make an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, the Court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. ii) Reference was made to Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu & Anr. – [ (2012) 9 SCC 446 ] to contend that the period of custody undergone by the accused seeking bail, was a relevant factor to be considered while deciding an application for bail. That in the instant case, the accused had been committed to custody barely four months before they were released on bail and therefore, the impugned orders granting bail to the accused are not tenable in the eyes of law. 15. In the aforesaid case, this Court held that a Court, before granting bail ought to consider the factors which would justify the grant of bail, in juxtaposition with the societal concern involved in releasing an accused on bail. (i) In State through C.B.I vs. Amaramani Tripathi – [ (2005) 8 SCC 21 ], this Court held that a Court granting bail to an accused, must apply its mind and go into the merits and evidence on record and determine whether a primafacie case was established against the accused. (i) In State through C.B.I vs. Amaramani Tripathi – [ (2005) 8 SCC 21 ], this Court held that a Court granting bail to an accused, must apply its mind and go into the merits and evidence on record and determine whether a primafacie case was established against the accused. It was held that the seriousness and gravity of the crime was also a relevant consideration. Based on such observations, this Court set aside an order of the High Court whereby bail had been granted to the accused therein, having no regard to the material placed by the prosecution therein, which indicated that the accused had, at all material times, tried to interfere with the course of investigation, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence, intimidate or create obstacles in the path of investigation officers and derail the case. 22. This Court has, on several occasions has discussed the factors to be considered by a Court while deciding a bail application. The primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail are: (i) the seriousness of the offence; (ii) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iii) the impact of release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. While such list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that if a Court takes into account such factors in deciding a bail application, it could be concluded that the decision has resulted from a judicious exercise of its discretion, vide Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [ (1978) 1 SCC 240 ] ; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors. – [ (2001) 4 SCC 280 ; Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2018) 12 SCC 129 ]. 23. This Court has also ruled that an order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of nonapplication of mind, rendering it illegal, vide Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh [ (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra) ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee – [ (2010) 14 SCC 496 ] ; Ramesh Bhawan Rathod vs. Voshanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & Ors. – [ (2021) 6 SCC 230 ; Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr. – [ (2021) 6 SCC 230 ; Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr. – Criminal Appeal No. 1663 of 2021 [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1280]. 24. Reference may also be had to recent decisions of this very Bench in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2022 [2022 SCC OnLine SC 30] and Jaibunisha vs. Meharban & Anr., Criminal Appeal 77 of 2022 [2022 SCC OnLine SC 58], wherein, on engaging in an elaborate discussion of the case law cited supra and after duly acknowledging that liberty of individual is an invaluable right, we have held that an order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 25. The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself,” is also apposite. 26. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned order above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of the High court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. 29. 29. As noted in Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) [1978 CriLJ 129], when bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the CrPC. However, if no new circumstances have arisen since the grant of bail, the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima-facie case against the accused. Strangely, the State of Rajasthan has not filed any appeal against the impugned orders herein. While we are conscious of the fact that a Court considering the grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the High Court while passing the impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. The High Court has granted bail to the respondents-accused by passing a very cryptic and casual order, de hors cogent reasoning. We find that the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the respondents accused. Hence the impugned orders dated 9th September, 2019 and 17th October, 2019 are set aside. The appeals are allowed." 21. In view of aforesaid settled proposition of law also, the Court is of the view that background of this peculiar circumstance is such where the learned Sessions Judge could have exercised discretion in a just and proper manner after dealing with all the relevant material and that having not been done such decision making process is erroneous and not on the touch stone of settled proposition of law as indicate above. Hence, this Court is of the clear opinion that orders passed by the learned Court below are not sustainable in the eye of law. The conjoint effect of entire involvement of the all the accused persons inter se and the alleged commission of crime which resulted into substantive complaint having been filed and the contents of report dated 04.05.2022 do not inspire any confidence in favour of grant of anticipatory bail or continuance thereof. The conjoint effect of entire involvement of the all the accused persons inter se and the alleged commission of crime which resulted into substantive complaint having been filed and the contents of report dated 04.05.2022 do not inspire any confidence in favour of grant of anticipatory bail or continuance thereof. In such a serious offence, if these orders are allowed to stand in the eye of law would result in derailing the investigation which has substantially been done by the respondent accused persons and as such this is not a fit case in which the discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be exercised. Accordingly order being perverse, suffers from the vice of non application of mind reflects irregular exercise of discretion, Court is left with no other option but to quash and set aside the orders in question. Accordingly, present applications stand allowed. The anticipatory bail which has been granted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand dated 22.07.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1104 of 2017, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand dated 11.04.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.427 of 2019 and by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand dated 22.07.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1108 of 2017 to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.20475 of 2017, respondent No.2 in Criminal Misc. Application No.12637 of 2019 and respondent No.2 in Criminal Misc. Application No.20478 of 2017 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents authorities are at liberty to expeditiously initiate steps in furtherance of the complaint in question.