The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused demonstrates cooperation with the investigation and when the investigation has been unduly prolonged.

ORDER :

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 438 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 171/2005 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

2. A criminal case No. 171/2005 was registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC on receipt of a complaint under section 156(3) CrPC filed by one Mahendra Kumar Johari through Chairman Director Johari Jewels Private Limited stating that M/s. Johari Jewels Private Limited is a registered company wherein apart from the complainant Govind Johari, Smt. Sita Johari, Ghasilal Choudhary and Gopal Johari were the Directors. There is a property of the Company i.e. C-7, Prithviraj Marg, C-Scheme, which was purchased through registered sale deed in the year 1997 with the amount invested by all the three brothers including the father of the accused petitioner. It was further stated that one of the Director namely; Ghasi Lal Choudhary was issued a notice for removing from Directorship and Ghasi Lal Choudhary was removed from the Directorship by Resolution dated 27.04.2005 and by another Resolution dated 21.03.2005 another Director Govind Johari-father of the petitioner (since dead) was also removed from the Directorship. It is alleged that after removal of Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) from the Directorships, they conspired to grab the property of the Company in an illegal manner inducting various persons as Directors as well as Addl. Directors of the Company and thereafter on 12.05.2005 a lease deed was executed in favour of the accused petitioner for a rent of Rs.25,000/- per month. In this manner the accused petitioner has committed the forgery.

3. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that when the complaint was filed in the year 2005, the accused petitioner was around 19 years of age and was busy in his study. Senior Counsel further submitted that so as to look after the business interest, a Power of Attorney was given to Govind Johari (since dead) which was registered on 27.09.2005. Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no role of the accused petitioner in any manner in getting the lease deed of the property in question, so no offence is made out against the petitioner. Senior Counsel further submitted that the issue in regard to removal of the Directors namely; Gopal Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) by the complainant party and also induction of new Directors and Addl. Directors by the co-accused Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) is pending before the NCLT and therein it would be decided that who are the legally valid Directors. Senior Counsel further submitted that the investigation of the matter is pending for the last 19 years and has been assigned to various Officers during various period breaks. Senior Counsel further submitted that at one point of time the investigation was handed over to SOG and also to CID (CB) and once the investigation is conducted by the SOG or CID (CB) no further re-investigation can be made by the Officers of the District or Range Police and such investigation will be illegal. Senior Counsel also submitted that various Police Officers who investigated into the matter and also submitted the Final Negative Reports but on behest of the complainant the investigation was transferred to other Police Officers because the complainant is having highhandedness with the Superior Authority. Senior Counsel further submitted that even if the contents of the FIR are taken to be correct then also the petitioner in no manner is connected with any kind of forgery. Senior Counsel further submitted that a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for which he is regularly pay