The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fraudulent preparation of documents, as evidenced by notarization before preparation and FSL reports showing dissimilar and forged thumb impressions and signatures, influenced the court's decision to reject the anticipatory bail application.

JUDGMENT

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.220/2018, Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the document alleged to be forged is a partnership dissolution deed of the year 1996 and the complainant has lodged the present FIR after 22 years. This delay in lodging the FIR has not at all been properly explained by the complainant. Counsel further submits that the petitioners had filed a civil suit in which interim order was granted and the said interim order was challenged by the opposite party before this Court and the matter was remanded back to the trial court and the trial court after hearing both the parties again granted an interim order in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondent from interfering in the functioning of the partnership. Counsel submits that the said document was examined by the handwriting expert and as per the FSL report, thumb impressions on the documents of year 1995 matched with signatures of Bhanwri Devi and thumb impressions of Chhoti Devi have been found matching on two pages but on one page, it was dissimilar. Counsel submits that thumb impressions of Chhoti Devi on one page has been opined to be dissimilar which can be due to number of reasons as handwriting examination is not a science and minor variations may creep in but the fact remains that the major portion of the allegation of the complainant has not been corroborated by FSL examination. Counsel further submits that the petitioner No.1 is a lady and petitioner No.2 is not even a beneficiary of the alleged documents and he has been implicated only because he is the husband of the petitioner No.1. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars for indefinite time. Thus, the petitioners may be released on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner No.1 Suman Devi, Bhanwari Devi, Chhoti Devi and Urmila Devi were four partners in M/s Riddhi Siddhi Namak Udhyog, Nawan. The said firm was registered in the year 1990. Counsel submit that the petitioners prepared forged document i.e. partnership dissolution deed dated 01.04.1995 however the said dissolution deed has been notarized on 27.03.1995, which clearly shows that the said dissolution deed was prepared fraudulently because it is not possible that the dissolution deed was drafted after notarizing the said deed. Counsel submit that the thumb impressions of Bhanwari Devi and Chhoti Devi were put by the petitioners and thereby, prepared the forged document.

4. Counsel further submits that the husband of Bhanwari Devi expired on 18.12.2014 and the petitioners having ill intention to grab the said Salt Udyog, firstly prepared forged partnership dissolution deed of the date 01.04.1995 which was notarized on 27.03.1995 and thereafter they prepared forged Form-E on 22.12.2014 by putting forged signature of Bhanwari Devi and forged thumb impression of Chhoti Devi. Counsel submits that if the partnership dissolution deed was prepared in the year 1995, then why the petitioners did not use the same for 23 years. The FSL reports have also been received. In the first FSL report dated 28.10.2020, thumb impressions of Chhoti Devi and Bhanwari Devi were found unfit for comparison being smudged. However, in second FSL report dated 20.04.2021, the signatures of Bhanwari Devi are found to be forged signatures and in the third FSL report dated 23.05.2019, it has been opined that it has not been possible to express a definite opinion regarding authorship of disputed signature, purported to be of Bhanwari Devi. Counsel submit that in the aforesaid circumstances, the benefit of anticipatory bail should not be granted to the present peti