JUDGMENT R.P. Dholaria, J. Rule. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. 2. Mr. Darshan Dave, learned advocate states that he has instructions to appear for the complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith. 3. Heard Mr. PP Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-80 of 2018 registered with Palanpur (West) Police Station, Banaskatha for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. PP Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for her remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. 7. Ms. Shruti Pathak, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 8. I have considered the allegations leveled against the applicant in the FIR and perused the papers of investigation and considered the role attributed to the applicant. I have also taken into consideration that the entire case of the prosecution rest upon the documentary evidence which alleged to have been occurred for about a decade ago and the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. 9. I have also taken into consideration that the entire case of the prosecution rest upon the documentary evidence which alleged to have been occurred for about a decade ago and the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others., reported in (1980)2 SCC 565 . 10. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R.No.I-80 of 2018 registered with Palanpur (West) Police Station, Banaskatha, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 25.06.2018 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change her residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week. 11. 11. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 12. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 13. The applicant shall produce the power of attorney, if having original with her, otherwise shall produce a certified copy and the investigating agency shall make all endeavours to find the original copy of the power of attorney with whomsoever it may be. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.