Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1534 (GUJ)

Kumarsinh Sanjaysinh Parmar v. State Of Gujarat

2024-07-09

GITA GOPI

body2024
ORDER : Gita Gopi, J. 1. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11196017230233 of 2023 registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC. 2. Mr. Dharmesh Devnani along with Ms. Akshitaba Solanki, learned advocates for the applicants submitted that the application is moved by the brothers who are sons of Sanjaysinh Parmar where the allegation against them is for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. Mr. Devnani submitted that the complaint has been filed against the present applicants and the father Sanjaysinh Bachusinh Parmar as accused no.1 and against Shantaben @ Gajaraben Bachubhai Rathod. 2.1 Referring to the complaint dated 20.3.2023, Mr. Devnani submitted that one Dharmishthaben wife of Hiren Harinarayan Mistri has filed the complaint as her husband is serving as a Clerk in Ward No.17, Vadodara Corporation. According to the complainant, he came to know that in December, 2020, one Kanan Villa No.1 Duplex Scheme was launched by the accused no.1 Sanjaysinh Parmar in the Town Planning Scheme upon Final Plot Nos. 873 and 879, on the land bearing revenue survey No. 541 at the outskirts of Village Danteshwar which has been finalized. Mr. Devnani submitted that according to the complainant, while she had visited the office of the accused no.1 both his sons i.e. the present applicants were present and since the complainant had proposed to purchase Duplex No. B/15 of Kanan Villa-1 Scheme, she was asked to pay over and above Rs.60 lacs, Rs.2 lacs for the document expenses. As per the complainant, an amount of Rs.25 lacs were deposited in the bank account of the present applicants as sons of the main accused Sanjaysinh Bachusinh Parmar. Rest of the amounts were paid by cash and a voucher was executed on stamp which was signed by Sanjaysinh Bachusinh Parmar. 2.2 The complainant stated that in February, 2022, she was informed by Sanjaysinh Bachusinh Parmar that RERA permission was not sanctioned and therefore, he had informed the complainant that he would get the registration of the plot and thereafter, an agreement for construction could be executed and thus had asked for Rs.2 lacs for the registration of the plot. 2.2 The complainant stated that in February, 2022, she was informed by Sanjaysinh Bachusinh Parmar that RERA permission was not sanctioned and therefore, he had informed the complainant that he would get the registration of the plot and thereafter, an agreement for construction could be executed and thus had asked for Rs.2 lacs for the registration of the plot. According to the complainant, she and her husband both had gone to the office of Sanjaysinh Bachusinh Parmar where it was stated that instead of Duplex, they would execute a document for the plot and for that purpose, there is no necessity for the RERA permission. As per the complainant, accused no.4 Shantaben @ Gajaraben Bachusinh Rathod was also present there and she was introduced by the original complainant. 2.3 Mr. Devnani submitted that there is no direct connection of the present applicants with the plot or the scheme floated by the father. The only connection that could be drawn is that the cheques which were given by the complainant were deposited in the bank account of the applicants and the complainant have tried to drag the children in the complaint by showing the presence with the original accused Sanjaysinh Parmar in the office. 2.4 Mr. Devnani submitted that the complaint notes that the registered document was registered at the Sub-Registrar, Vadodara on 12.04.2022 which was signed and thus, stated that it is not the case that no document has been registered with regard to the land. 2.5 Referring to the notings of the Committee before the Collector, Vadodara on 19.01.2023 under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, Mr. Devnani submitted that the land in question is registered in the name of agriculturist Mahijibhai Zinabhai at Village Danteshwar and Mahijibhai Zinabhai has been in possession of the land. By change entry No.1134 dated 29.10.1962, the land with the conditions was mutated in the name of Mahijibhai Zinabhai and by entry no. 1616 dated 08.01.1969, the effect was given with regard to the certificate in Form 9. 2.6 Mr. Devnani submitted that entry No. 1857 dated 17.06.1976 on the basis of agreement to sell was proposed to be mutated in favour of Patel Jayantilal Mohanlal and Bai Lalita widow of Patel Mohanlal Hargovan and Naranbhai Mohanbhai, Chandrakant Mohanlal Patel, Kanaiyalal Mohanlal and Jagdishbhai Mohanlal jointly but since the agreement was unregistered, it could not be approved. 2.7 Mr. Devnani submitted that entry No. 1857 dated 17.06.1976 on the basis of agreement to sell was proposed to be mutated in favour of Patel Jayantilal Mohanlal and Bai Lalita widow of Patel Mohanlal Hargovan and Naranbhai Mohanbhai, Chandrakant Mohanlal Patel, Kanaiyalal Mohanlal and Jagdishbhai Mohanlal jointly but since the agreement was unregistered, it could not be approved. 2.7 Mr. Devnani submitted that by change entry No.2466 dated 09.01.1990, since Mahijibhai Zinabhai died before 24 years, for bringing the heirs on record and accordingly, change entry No.3283 came to be mutated by the order passed by the ULC dated 17.04.1997. 3. Countering the arguments, Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP for the State submitted that the fact of the entries being forged came to the knowledge of the authority concerned and thereafter, land grabbing proceedings have been initiated. It is stated by learned APP that the land in question which is land bearing revenue survey No.541 was not connected with Mahijibhai Zinabhai and his right as an agriculturist or protected tenant was not in connection with the said survey No.541 and further stated that in the year 1951, no such entry was mutated in village form no.7/12 showing Mahijibhai Zinabhai as tenant. The order was passed by the ALT for Mahijibhai Zinabhai after making payment for the sale of the prohibited land. Learned APP submitted that during the meeting, under the the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, the facts were disclosed which had come on record that the entry in connection with revenue survey No.541 was not included in any ALT proceedings in connection with Mahijibhai Zinabhai. Learned APP submitted that even the Pedhinama is false where accused No.4 Shantaben has shown herself as an heir of the deceased Mahijibhai Zinabhai and stated that in total, Rs.39 lacs has been usurped by Kumar Sanjaysinh Parmar, against whom, 4 complaints have been filed and other complaints are also filed by the other plot holders. Rs.5 lacs has been usurped by Harsh Sanjaysinh Parmar, against whom, 3 complaints have been filed and thus, stated that the bail application may be rejected. Learned APP has also relied upon the report produced by the Police Sub Inspector, Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City. 4. Considering the facts of the case, it appears that the transaction was executed by Sanjaysinh Parmar, father of the both the applicants. Learned APP has also relied upon the report produced by the Police Sub Inspector, Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City. 4. Considering the facts of the case, it appears that the transaction was executed by Sanjaysinh Parmar, father of the both the applicants. The only allegation that could be drawn from the FIR that both the sons were present with the father and the alleged entries regarding the financial dealings by way of cheque has been shown to be deposited in the bank account of the applicants. The land in question is survey No.541 which according to the State is a Government Gauchar land and by illegally entering the name of Shantaben @ Gajaraben Bachusinh Rathod in the revenue records, Kan Villa-1 Duplex Scheme was floated and the complainant was duped with the money. It is the case of the State that illegal documents have been registered. The transactions are regarding the sale of the land that the complainant is also required to be vigilant on the principle of ‘buyers beware’. The allegation against the present applicants is of having deposited the money in the bank account of the complainant. The alleged act is against the accused no.1 and accused no.4 who have been granted bail. Considering the role ascribed in the complaint, discretion is exercised in favour of the applicants. 5. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11196017230233 of 2023 registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- each (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicants shall: [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned trial court; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; 6. The authorities shall release the applicants only if the applicants are not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. The authorities shall release the applicants only if the applicants are 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 issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. 7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.