ORDER :

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with CR No. 288/2015, Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur East for the offences under Sections 420 , 406, 467, 468 471 and 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that the petitioners neither prepared any forged documents nor put any signature of any person for the purpose of cheating. It is submitted that the complainant had misappropriate the money of the company and in this regard, the petitioner no. 1 lodged FIRs against the complainant at different police stations and as a counterblast the complainant has lodged the present FIR against the petitioners. It is also argued that the complainant was removed from the Directorship of company by a resolution and if the complainant is aggrieved by the resolution, the complainant is at liberty to file appeal in accordance with law, therefore, in these circumstances the anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant argued that the present petitioners are the main accused who included their family members as share holders and after creating forged documents and putting fake signatures, removed the complainant from the Directorship. The role of petitioners is clear from the reading of the FIR and it is a clear case of fraud and deceit which is writ large from the documents on record. Therefore, at this stage, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of petitioners.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material on record.

5. The allegation against the present petitioners is that the petitioners committed fraud with the complainant and other two share holders by including their family members as shareholders and thereafter, conducted bogus meetings and ousted the complainant from the Directorship of the company by putting fake signatures of other shareholders. It is also alleged that during the period when the alleged meetings were held, one of the shareholder Preeti Bidiyasar was out of country. Thus, from the perusal of the FIR, a prima facie case under Section 420 , 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC is proved against the petitioner No. 1 Prem Prakash Bidiyasar. However, no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner no. 2 Pushpa Bidiyasar.

6. The power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It is also well settled that arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes and it may be necessary to curtail the freedom of an accused in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and prevent the disappearance of the accused.

7. In the case in hand, the collected oral and documentary evidence prima facie shows involvement of the petitioner No. 1 Prem Prakash bidiyasar in the deep rooted conspiracy with other co-accused persons. A strong prima facie case is available against the petitioner No. 1 for committing fraud and forgery. When investigation is still going on, it would not be pro