1. - This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner in a Criminal Case arising out of FIR No.940/2008, registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 473 and 120-B IPC.After filing of the application, when the matter was listed before the Court on 01.03.2012, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to call for the case diary.

2. The prosecution case is that the complainant Naeem Sarwar was told by the accused Mohammad Musad Gauri and Zubeda Musad Gauri that property dealing is a good business in India. The complainant Naeem Sarwar is working in Kuwait. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant had got transferred an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- in the account of the accused Mohammad Musad Gauri on 24.04.2005 and then in the year 2006, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was also given to him, from time to time. The accusation against the petitioner is that from the aforesaid amount, he had purchased a land in Jagdamba Colony and got flats constructed. Later on, the complainant came to know that the accused got the said flats transferred in his name and then sold them out. It is also the case of the prosecution that Plot No.12, situation in Rajendra Nagar, Sirsi Road, Khatipura, Jaipur was got transferred to the complainant on 13.04.2007 in the capacity of power of attorney holder. The complainant has alleged that the accused/petitioner got a forged power of attorney dated 16.06.2008 prepared and the said plot at Rajendra Nagar was transferred on 03.07.2008 by him, in conspiracy with Mohammad Rafiq Khan and Bhura.

3. After lodging of the aforesaid report, the police came in action and started investigation in the matter. Earlier, the co-accused Smt. Zubeda Musad Gauri, wife of the present petitioner, approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail (7803/2009) but the same was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.10.2009. From the record of the learned Public Prosecutor, it is revealed that on completion of investigation in the instant case, the police filed challan against the petitioner under Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code Now in the year 2012, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge by filing an application under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code The said application was dismissed by Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur by the impugned order dated 07.02.2012. Hence, the present bail application under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed before the High Court.

4. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor has raised objection with regard to grant of anticipatory bail on the premise that the investigation in the case has already been concluded and challan was filed against the petitioner under Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code and as such, the petitioner does not deserve the indulgence of anticipatory bail from this Court and the same be rejected.

5. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that no case, as alleged by the prosecution, is made out against the petitioner. Further, he has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed any offence of cheating or forgery against the complainant. He has submitted that the petitioner deserves to be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail, in the present case. In support of his submissions, the counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the cases of (1) Ravindra Saxena, 2010 (1) WLC (SC) 171 ; (2) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. Sate of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1 ; and (3) Syed Jamir Hussai v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3188/2011, decided by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur on 21.10.2011 .

6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of th