No Law Obliges Stating Of Religion While Seeking Sanction To Transfer Immovable Property: Gujarat HC Grants Pre Arrest Bail To Parsi Man

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 filed in support of application seeking previous sanction to transfer immovable property."

Facts in brief

The allegations levelled against the Parsi Man was that, 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 of the fact that he belongs to 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 Parsi Man "despite being a 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.

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 filed by him for the purpose of getting the previous sanction to sell his immovable property.

At the same time, he submitted that though he was of Parsi religion, but 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.

Applicant's submission before the Court

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 Only) with one surety of like amount.

Despite this order, the Court has given the liberty to the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant.