Last week, the Gujarat High Court last week granted Anticipatory Bail to Feroze Fali Contractor, against whom an FIR had been lodged under the Disturbed Areas Act, by a Hindu man as he allegedly hid his religion while selling his property. While granting him the bail, the Bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi specifically observed, “Prima facie, it appears that no law obliges to state his religion in the affidavit led in support of application seeking previous sanction to transfer immovable property.”
The allegations levelled against Contractor were for getting the previous sanction for sale of immovable property owned by him, while making application in the affidavit annexed with the application, no religion of the applicant was mentioned therein, despite his belonging to the Parsi community. The FIR had been registered against him for the offenses punishable under Sections 177, 181, 406, 465, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6D of the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
As reported by the Indian Express, the FIR stated that Contractor, “despite being Parsi, did not disclose his religion…” in the documents submitted before the government authorities (District Collector’s Office) pertaining to the transfer of plot to a Muslim man. The FIR also alleged that Contractor “took advantage of his Muslim-sounding first name… to get permission (for transfer of property) under the Disturbed Areas Act”.
The advocate for the first informant submitted that he had shown his incomplete address other than his usual place of abode in the affidavit led by him for the purpose of getting the previous sanction to sell his immovable property. He also submitted that though he was of Parsi religion, he had not mentioned his religion in the affidavit tendered along with the application for getting permission under ‘the Act’ and thereby, the applicant had committed an offence as mentioned in the FIR.
The Applicant/Contractor submitted before the court that “unless any provision of law obliges a person to mention religion even in any affidavit, non-mentioning the same would not attract any offence under any law.” It was also submitted that section 6D under the Disturbed Areas only came into force in October 2020 and whereas, the alleged commission of offence took place in May 2020, and the FIR was registered in August 2020.
Having analysed the facts of the case, the Court allowed his application for pre-arrest bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount. Despite this order, the Court gave the liberty to the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant.
- દિકરી એટલે બીજી માં… - 20 April2024
- નાગપુરની બાઈ હીરાબાઈ એમ. મુલાનદરેમહેરનો ઇતિહાસ - 20 April2024
- વિશ્વ ભારતી સંસ્થાન દ્વારા રતિ વાડિયાનુંસન્માન કરવામાં આવ્યું - 20 April2024
