JUDGMENT 1. - The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Initially FIR has been filed in connection to Chand Khan from whom fake currency notes have been recovered. On the information of Chand Khan, two persons, Mehboob and Ramesh Soni have been arrested. From Mehboob Rs. 90,000/- and from Ramesh Soni, Rs. 800/- has been recovered. Only evidence against the present petitioner is that Yogesh has stated that he has handed one bag of currency note to him. His statements have been recorded twice, during investigation. Yogesh has been examined before the court below and he has not supported the prosecution story. Highest case of the prosecution is that he has received some money form Chand Khan for which Yogesh has not supported the prosecution story. Charge sheet has been filed in the year 2005 against co-accused and for present petitioner matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. After 9 years, on 20.1.2014, application before Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu has been filed to procure arrest warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act without any basis hence the present petitioner has apprehension of his arrest. He earlier moved application under Section 438 Cr.P.C which has been dismissed by the court below. The present petitioner be granted anticipatory bail. 2. Further contention of the present petitioner is that he is not absconding from the proceedings and documents placed on record show that he is working in Geetanjali Infretech Ltd. since 2008. He is income tax payer and his whereabouts were known. 3. Further contention of the petitioner is that issuing of arrest warrant under Section 37 of Police Act is not a bar to entertain the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C and reliance has been placed on Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 wherein it has been held that where arrest warrant has been issued and the petitioner has not been declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code, he is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. Further reliance has been placed on Shokat Panwar v. State of Raj. & ors., (Cr. Appeal No. 1962/2013) where the reliance has been placed on Lavesh (supra). Further reliance has been placed on Shokat Panwar v. State of Raj. & ors., (Cr. Appeal No. 1962/2013) where the reliance has been placed on Lavesh (supra). The contention of the petitioner is that he has not been declared absconder and only arrest warrant has been issued under Section 37 of the Police Act, hence the petitioner be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail.Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the present petitioner is absconding from the proceedings since 2005 and the factual report of the same has been placed on record. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that present petitioner is actively involved in the offence and looking to the nature of the offence, petitioner should not be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The factual report presented by the learned Public Prosecutor speaks that from 2005 till date the investigation was pending with 8 police officials but no material outcome from the investigation agency has been reported. It seems that from the year 2005, no progress much less the material progress has been done. The learned Public Prosecutor could not show that any evidence except the statement of Yogesh has been collected during investigation against the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 25.3.2014 has asked the learned Public Prosecutor to acquaint this Court as to what efforts were made by the Investigating Agency to apprehend the petitioner in last 8 years but factual report placed by the State is silent on the point and only general statements have been made that efforts have been made to apprehend the petitioner. The C.I.D(C.B) and police have slept over the matter for nine years. In view of the above, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Consequently, the bail application is allowed. 5. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Jaswantgarh Distt. Nagaur in F.I.R. No.102/2005 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Pinky Daima @ Vijay Daima S/o Shri Durga Dutt Daima, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Bail Application allowed. *******