1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The complainant-petitioner has filed this application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. with the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 by this Court vide order dated 30.8.2013 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7930/2013 in respect of F.I.R. No. 40/2013 registered at Police Station Gangapur City (District Sawai Madhopur) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. mainly on the {round that during investigation FSL report dated 19.11.2013 has been obtained and it has been opined in it that the disputed agreement to sell dated 15.1.2012 does not bear the signatures of the complainant and while affording liberty of anticipatory bail to the respondents, a right was given to the complainant to pray for cancellation of the same, if it is found in the FSL report that the disputed agreement does not bear the signatures of the complainant.

3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this application may be stated as below:

(i) The petitioner filed a complaint against the accused-respondents and two other persons for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City on 14.1.2013 alleging therein that the accused i pursuance of their criminal conspiracy executed forged agreement to sell of 15.1.2012 in respect of property in dispute and the fact of forgery came into his knowledge on 21.12.2012.

(ii) The complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.ti the concerned Police Station and F.I.R. No. 40/2013 was registered for the aforesaid offences and investigation commenced.

(iii) Apprehending their arrest, the respondents initially filed application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 1.4.2013.

(iv) Thereafter, the aforesaid application for grant of anticipatory bail was filed before this Court mainly on the ground that the disputed agreement was executed by the complainant on 15.1.2012 in favour of respondent-Shri Vijai Kumar after obtaining the amount of sale consideration as mentioned in it am on the basis of that agreement respondent-Vijay Kumar filed a suit for specific performance against the complainant on 16.1.2013 in the Court of Additions District Judge, Gangapur City, which is now pending. It was also averred in the application that prior to the aforesaid suit, a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction was also filed against the complainant and two other persons in the aforesaid Court on 12.12.2012 is which the complainant filed reply to the application on 21.1.2013 and ad interim temporary injunction order has already been passed in favour of the respondent

(v) Mainly considering the aforesaid claim made by the respondents, that the application filed by them was allowed, but at the same time right was granted to the complainant to pray for cancellation of the same, if it is found in the FSl report that the disputed agreement does not bear the signature of the complainant.

4. In support of the application, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that as the right was granted to the complainant for cancellation of the bail and now the FSL report has been obtained and it has been opined that the disputed agreement does not bear the signature of the complainant, which being prima facie indication of the fact that the disputed agreement is a forget document and no such agreement was ever executed by the complainant in favour of the respondent-accused-Shri Vijay Kumar and he in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy has prepared a forged document and has filed civil suits or the basis of such a forged document. It was further submitted that once after grant of anticipatory bail, a material and important fact regarding forgery has 'come on record, the benefit already granted to the