JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2015 passed by learned Special Court (Forged Currency Cases) & Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby he has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Mahesh Chand Sharma submitted a complaint before the Rs. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (South) stating therein that he had bought plot no. 209, Shree Gopal Nagar, Jaipur by registered sale deed from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 50,21,000/-. At the time of said sale-deed, Smt. Kamla Pareek had informed that the plot was without any dispute but it was not so. Hence an FIR bearing No. 254/2013 was registered under Section 420, 406 and 120 IPC. In the meantime, when the police had arrested the petitioner, she was produced before the court of CJM Barsat, North 24 Pargana Calcutta, who accordingly vide order dated 21.7.2015 released the petitioner on bail till 30.7.2015 on the condition that on being released on bail she shall surrender before the concerned court at Jaipur positively by 30.07.2015 and a compliance report with regard to her surrender before the concerned court was to be submitted before that court positively by 5.8.2015.The order dated 21.7.2015 is reproduced as under:- "Accused Smt. Kamala Pareek is produced in this court today on being discharged from the hospital. ASI of police, Mahaveer Prasad of Mahesh Nagar P/S, Jaipur, Rajasthan files a fresh prayer seeking transit remand of the accused for her transit to Jaipur for production before the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate No. 30, Jaipur, Mahanagar. A bail petition has been filed on behalf of the accused. Heard Ld. Advocate for the accused as well as the Ld. APP. Perused the material in the case record. Considered. It appears that the accused was arrested on execution of warrant of arrest issued by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate No. 30, Jaipur, Mahanagar and immediately after her arrest, her physical condition deteriorated and she had to be admitted to Rajarhat-Gopalpur Municipality Deshbandhunagar Hospital, Kolkata where from she was shifted to Rotary Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. The accused has been released from the hospital with the advice to continue medical management. A number of medicines have also been prescribed for the accused by the concerned doctor. The accused has been released from the hospital with the advice to continue medical management. A number of medicines have also been prescribed for the accused by the concerned doctor. On production of the accused in the court today it could be seen that the accused is still having vomiting tendency and her physical condition does not seem proper for her transit to Jaipur which is far off from this place. In the circumstances, considering the physical condition of the accused, the prayer for transit remand of the accused is rejected. In consideration of the facts & circumstances stated above, the prayer for bail of the accused is allowed. Accordingly, the accused Kamala Pareek may be released on bail till 30.7.2015 on her furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each one of whom must be an Advocate surety on further condition that on being released on bail she shall surrender before the concerned court positively by 30.7.2015 and a compliance report with regard to her surrender before the concerned court has to be submitted before this court positively by 5.8.2015 by the Ld. Advocate Md. Kalam and Ld. Advocate Prasenjit Sen." 3. Although the petitioner was released on bail uptil 30.7.2015 and compliance report was to be submitted by 5.8.2015, but instead of surrendering herself before M.M. No. 30, Jaipur Metropolitan, the petitioner has moved the anticipatory bail before the court below, who vide impugned order dated 29.7.2015 dismissed the same, hence this bail application has been moved. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is suffering from cancer and is not keeping well, she has been falsely implicated in this case, she is an old lady and presently admitted in hospital, she has not committed any forgery with anybody, in fact she sold the property in dispute by valid registered sale deed to the complainant. It has also been contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with lie investigation. She is no more required as nothing is to be recovered from her, there is no likelihood of misuse of liberty granted to her as she would neither abscond nor take such step so as to avoid due process of law. It has also been contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with lie investigation. She is no more required as nothing is to be recovered from her, there is no likelihood of misuse of liberty granted to her as she would neither abscond nor take such step so as to avoid due process of law. It has to been contended that since the petitioner has not surrendered as yet and raving apprehension of her arrest, therefore, it has been requested that the petitioner should be released on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have apposed the bail application, and contended that the matter involves transaction of Rs. 50,21,000/-, and since the petitioner earlier was arrested and produced before the CJM, Barsat North 24 Pargana, Calcutta, who vide order dated 21.7.2015 has released her on bail on the condition that on being released on bail she shall surrender before the concerned court at Jaipur positively by 30.7.2015 and a compliance report with regard to her surrender before the concerned court was to be submitted before that court positively w 5.8.2015, but instead of submitting the compliance report positively by 5.8.2015 and surrendering of petitioner by 30.7.2015, she has moved the bail application before the court below and thereafter this court as well, hence her rail application should be rejected and she should not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 29.7.2015. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 29.7.2015. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below which are reproduced as under: " dsl Mk;jh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa o rF;kRed is'k fjiksVZ ds voyksdu ls ;g rks Li"V gS fd eqyftek Jherh deyk ikfjd dks fnukad 01-07-2015 dks dydRrk esa okj.V 37 iqfyl ,DV dh ikyuk esa fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k ftldk LokLF; [kjkc gksus ij jksVjh ukjk;.kk vLirky esa HkrhZ gksus ij okLrs ;k=k fjek.M pkgus gsrq U;k;ky; lhts,e cjlkr ukWFkZ] 24 ijxuk dydRrk esa is'k fd;k tgkWa ls fnukad 21-07-2015 dks U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 30-07-2015 rd vUrfje tekur Lohdkj Qjekrs gq, 20]000@& :i;s ds Lo;a ds eqpyds o 10]000@&] 10]000@& :i;s dh nks tekurksa ij vktkn Qjekrs gq, 20]000@& :i;s ds Lo;a ds eqpyds o 10&10 gtkj :i;s dh nks tekurksa ij vktkn Qjekrs gq, okj.V 37 iqfyl ,DV esa fu/kkZfjr frfFk 30-07-2015 dks U;k;ky; ,e0,e0 30] t;iqj egkuxj ds le{k is'k gksus gsrq ikcUn fd;k x;k gqvk gSA lhts,e cjlkr ukWFkZ] 24] ijxuk dydRrk }kjk fnukad 21-07-2015 dks tkjh fd;sA x;s ewy vkns'k e; fjek.M 'khV ,oa rLnhd fd;s x;s tekur eqpyds lEiw.kZ nLrkostkr U;k;ky; ,e0,e0 30] t;iqj egkuxj ds le{k is'k fd;s tk pqds gSaA izdj.k esa Hkh vuqla/kku gksuk 'ks"k gSA vr% izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks e/; utj j[krs gq, izkFkhZ;k dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ;fn izkFkhZ;k dks mDr izdj.k esa tekur dk ykHk iznku fd;k tkrk gS rks izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k ij foijhr vlj iM+us dh laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkns'k vr% izkFkhZ Jherh deyk ikjhd] iRuh Lo% Jh euhjke 'kekZ] mezZ 62 o"kZ] fuoklh Dyc Mkmu ,Udyso] 19] fpukj ikdZ] CykWd&3] Q~ysV la[;k 2,] Fkkuk gfFk;kjk] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky }kjk izLrqr vfxze tekur izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 438 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA " 7. From the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, it is admitted fact that the petitioner was produced before the court of CJM Barsat, North 24 Pargana, Calcutta, who accordingly vide order dated 21.7.2015 released the petitioner on bail till 30.7.2015 on the condition that on being released on bail she shall surrender before the concerned court positively by 30.7.2015 and a compliance report with regard to her surrender before the concerned court was to be submitted before that court positively by 5.8.2015. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was admitted to Rotary Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Salt Lake City, Kolkata and she was later-on released from the hospital with the advice to continue medical management. On production of the accused in the court of CJM Barsat North 24 Pargana Calcutta, looking to the physical condition of the petitioner, it rejected the prayer of the I.O. concerned for transit remand of the petitioner from Kolkata to Jaipur, but instead of that, the petitioner was released on bail. But while releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail, the concerned court imposed the condition that she shall surrender before the concerned court positively by 30.7.2015 and a compliance report with regard to her surrender before the concerned court was to be submitted before that court positively by 5.8.2015. But instead of surrendering before the concerned court on 5.8.2015, she moved anticipatory bail before that court. On the one hand, she had been released on bail by the concerned Magistrate of Kolkata and on the other hand she has not complied with the condition imposed by it, which shows the utter disregard by the petitioner to the judicial order passed by the Magisterial court. 8. It is relevant to mention here that Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made applicable only in the event of there being an apprehension of arrest, but in the instant case, the petitioner had already been arrested and released on bail, as mentioned here-in-above and in such circumstances, the petitioner I cannot invoke the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 9. On the above fact situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. v. Union of India and ors. reported in 2002(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 159 : (2002) 2 SCC 210 held as under: "51. On the above fact situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. v. Union of India and ors. reported in 2002(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 159 : (2002) 2 SCC 210 held as under: "51. On the score of anticipatory bail it is trite knowledge that Sections Cr.P.C. is made applicable only in the vent of there being an apprehension of arrest. The petitioners in the writ petitions herein are all inside the prison bars upon arrest against all cognisable offences, and in the wake of the aforesaid question relieving the petitioners from unnecessary disgrace and harassment would not arise. 52. In that view of the matter and since no infraction can be identified, flu petition also cannot be sustained as regards the issue of anticipatory bail under Section 438." 10. Accordingly, in view of above findings arrived at by the court below as also the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, quoted herein above, and also in view of above facts & circumstances of the case, without expressing an opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I do not think it just and props j to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.Bail application dismissed. *******