In an application filed before the Gujarat High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing a First Information Report (FIR) registered against offences punishable under Sections 4(3), 5(c) of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Justice M.K. Thakker rejected the application, considering the applicant’s conduct.
The complainant purchased a property in Chistiya Township, Bharuch, from its original owners on 26-09-2000 by a registered sale deed and was staying at the same property since 2001. In December, 2020, the applicant and her husband had approached the complainant’s son stating that they were doctors and had purchased a house for which the process of registration was going on and requested to stay in the said property for 15 days.
Permission was given for a 15-day stay, but upon completion of the same, a request was made to extend the accommodation for a few more days. Thereafter, the complainant asked them to vacate the premises but the applicant issued threats refusing to vacate the premises. After 3 years, an online application was filed under the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act on 22-07-2023 and by an order dated 17-12-2024, the Land Grabbing Committee directed the FIR to be lodged.
The Court noted that the applicant had still not vacated the subject property as well as her conduct. It was stated that the applicant had earlier been granted bail on the condition that she would vacate the premises and file an executing bond to this effect. Another condition imposed on the applicant was for her to mark her presence before the police station concerned once a month for six months and to surrender her passport. However, it came to light that an undertaking was filed after two months and that no other condition had been complied by the applicant. Thereafter, the complainant’s application seeking cancellation of bail was allowed and the applicant was taken into custody.
The applicant then filed a regular bail application before Additional Sessions Judge II, which was rejected. This order was challenged before this Court, but was again rejected with an observation that the applicant had made a false declaration that she was ready and willing to hand over the disputed property. Subsequently, a challenge was made before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. The Court also noted that the applicant was granted temporary bail for 7 days, but she did not surrender and was sent to custody after being caught by the police.
Referring to the criteria mentioned in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal AIR 1992 SC 604 and after noting the false declaration as well as the applicant’s conduct, the Court did not find any merit in the application and thus, rejected the same.
