Ahmedabad court rejects bail of Popular Builder Dashrath Patel in 39-year-old land forgery case

Ahmedabad District and Sessions Court (Rural) has rejected the regular bail application of 67-year-old Dashrath Patel in a case involving land forgery and criminal conspiracy dating back nearly four decades.

Accused currently held in Sabarmati Central Jail, is alleged of conspiring with his brother to seize land in Godhavi village that originally belonged to the complainant’s grandfather. The prosecution alleges that in 1982, the accused created a fictitious person named to pose as a legal heir, subsequently recording this name in revenue records through forged succession documents. This led to a fraudulent sale deed executed in 1983.

The state opposed the bail, highlighting the accused’s ‘modus operandi’ and a history of seven past antecedents involving similar document forgery. Investigators argued that the forged sale deed is concealed or destroyed by the applicant-accused. As a conspiracy and to save himself from future litigation the accused has not put his signature in the sale deed as a purchaser, unlike in ordinary sale transactions where parties to the sale deed put their signatures.

Now, the applicant/accused wants to detach from the sale deed saying that there is no signature of him in the sale deed, but as he has paid consideration to the seller, he cannot say that seller of the property is an unknown person to him. Just to see that the said forged sale deed is not available with the investigating agency, the same is hidden or concealed or destroyed by the applicant. Furthermore, the prosecution noted that the complainant has reported receiving threats and inducements from Patel’s relatives to settle the matter, the prosecution counsel argued.

Defense counsel argued for bail based on the accused senior citizen status and health ailments. He contended that the 39-year delay in filing the FIR suggests a civil dispute rather than a criminal one and pointed out that the accused's signature does not appear on the allegedly forged documents.

The court denied the application, citing the seriousness of the offense and accused of past conduct. The court noted that the accused had previously attempted to evade arrest, leading to his eventual apprehension in Nathdwara, Rajasthan. Given the ongoing investigation and the credible risk of witness tampering, the court ruled that exercising discretion in favour of the applicant was not justified.