ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant record. 2. This bail application has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.270/2016 of Udaimandir Police Station, District Jodhpur registered for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of attorney was executed by the owner of the property – Smt. Geetanjali Singh in favour of the petitioner in the year 1986. Out of that property, Kotdi No. 71 was sold out by Smt. Geetanjali Singh to Mohammad Mehmood son of Lal Mohammad but the fact was not intimated to the petitioner. Neither the power of attorney was revoked nor the petitioner was in know of the fact that Kotdi No. 71 has already been sold out by the original owner Smt. Geetanjali Singh herself. Learned counsel submits that under this misconception, Kotdi No. 71 was again sold out to one Mr. Vinod Kumar. He further submits that in F.I.R. 269/2016, Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur having similar nature allegations, the present petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail. This matter is also having the same allegations. He also submits that the present petitioner is about 77 aged old lady. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. No incriminating evidence has been collected against him as yet during investigation. 5. There is no possibility of the petitioner to flee from justice. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application stating that as per the investigation report and the case diary, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner has been involved in this case without any material. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that this petitioner has sold out the property again to Vinod Kumar. 7. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application stating that as per the investigation report and the case diary, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner has been involved in this case without any material. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that this petitioner has sold out the property again to Vinod Kumar. 7. Having considered the rival contentions made at Bar and all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case in totality, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the petitioner and the evidence collected so far during the investigation; and also taking this fact into consideration that in FIR No. 269/2016, Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur having similar nature allegations, the present petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail and also taking the advanced age of the petitioner into consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this appears to be a fit case in which, anticipatory bail deserves to be granted to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of petitioner Sobha Rani wife of Vikram Singh in connection with F.I.R. No. 270/2016, Udaimandir Police Station, District Jodhpur, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :- (i) that the petitioners shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.