ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Through the medium of instant application filed under Section 497-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner/applicant inter alia seeks indulgence of this Court for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail in a criminal case pertaining to FIR No. 17/2012, registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu under Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B R.P.C. 2. In the petition, it has been stated that the allegation in the FIR pertaining to the petitioner is false and baseless and the petitioner has not committed any offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B R.P.C; that petitioner had also filed an application under Section 497-A Cr.P.C. in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu wherein initially interim bail was granted and subsequently vide order dated 04.12.2017 the application was dismissed by the court below. The investigation agency has no evidence to prove the involvement of the petitioner/accused in the commission of offence alleged in the said FIR. The investigation agency did not enquire about the veracity of the allegation of the complainant before registering the case. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to rebut the allegation leveled against the petitioner. The entire proceeding conducted by the Investigating officer was biased to implicate the petitioner in the said FIR. The petitioner/accused undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigation officer and abide the conditions emphasized under Section 497-A (ii) Cr.P.C. if she is granted an opportunity to join the investigation by this court by granting an interim bail to her till the final decision on the petition. The petitioner is a women and a mother of two children and there is no other in the family to look-after her minor children. The said FIR was lodged in the year 2012 and till date the investigating agency has not investigated the matter and there is huge delay in completing the investigation by the investigating agency. The petitioner undertakes to abide each and every terms and conditions imposed by this court while granting the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner/applicant be admitted to bail in the interest of justice. 3. The State has filed the objections wherein it has been stated that brief facts of case are that a complaint on behalf of Sikander Hayat S/o. Mohd. Yousaf, Sikander Hussain S/o. Abdul Ghani, Mushtaq Hussain S/o. Mohd. Younis, Mohd. Aksar S/o. Mohd. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner/applicant be admitted to bail in the interest of justice. 3. The State has filed the objections wherein it has been stated that brief facts of case are that a complaint on behalf of Sikander Hayat S/o. Mohd. Yousaf, Sikander Hussain S/o. Abdul Ghani, Mushtaq Hussain S/o. Mohd. Younis, Mohd. Aksar S/o. Mohd. Talib, residents of Kakora Tehsil and District Rajouri, Mohd. Azam S/o. Mohd. Rafiq R/o Mohra Karal Tehsil Kotranka District Rajouri and Mohd. Alyas S/o. Mohd. Yousaf R/o Jaglanoo, Tehsil Kotranka District Rajouri duly endorsed by Special Municipal Mobile, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was received in Crime Branch, Jammu wherein the complainants had alleged that on 19.05.2010 they came to Jammu and from some independent source, came to know about the religious activities of one Mohd. Ashraf Peer who was residing in the house of Mamta Devi alias Chanchlo Devi W/o Jasbir Singh at Akalpur near Vishwa Bharti School, Akalpur Muthi, Domana, Jammu. The complainants met with the said Peer and narrated their miseries to him on which they were told by the said Peer that the woman Mamta Devi, her husband Jasbir Singh, daughter Sonia and Neelam Devi W/o Harnam Singh, having political links were in a position to manage Govt. jobs for the complainants. On this, the complainants met with the above named accused persons who assured that they would provide permanent jobs to the complainants in Social Forestry Department in lieu of Rs. 3.00 lacs each for miscellaneous expenses. The day of payment was fixed and on that day the accused persons handed over the appointment orders to the complainants pertaining to Social Forestry Department as Plantation Watcher. The accused persons also got published the select list in the Morning Time Newspaper dated 13.12.2010. When the complainants approached the concerned department for joining, they came to know that the appointment orders were fake and forged etc; that on receipt of this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was initiated in Crime Branch, Jammu and during the course of enquiry, prima facie offences u/s. 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B/RPC were made out against Mohd. Ashraf Hafiz S/o. Mohd. Yousaf R/o Koteranka Rajouri, Mamta Devi w/o Jasbir Singh, Jasbir Singh H/o Mamta Devi, Sonia D/o Jasbir Singh, Neelam Devi W/o Harnam Singh R/o near Vishwa Bharti School, Akalpur, Muthi Domana, Jammu, Mohd. Ashraf Hafiz S/o. Mohd. Yousaf R/o Koteranka Rajouri, Mamta Devi w/o Jasbir Singh, Jasbir Singh H/o Mamta Devi, Sonia D/o Jasbir Singh, Neelam Devi W/o Harnam Singh R/o near Vishwa Bharti School, Akalpur, Muthi Domana, Jammu, Mohd. Yousuf Wani and Abdul Qayoom R/o Srinagar. FIR was accordingly registered and during the course of investigation, it has been found that one Mohd. Ashraf (Hafiz) S/o. Mohd. Yousaf R/o Kotranka who is a known 'Peer' had come across with one Mst. Mamta Devi alias Chanchlo Devi w/o Jasbir Singh R/o Akalpur, Muthi, who assured him that she had some political clout and that she could manage appointments in Forest Department. The said Mohd. Ashraf went to his home and informed his close relatives (complainants) about all this. The complainants came to the house of the Mst. Mamta Devi at Akalpur Muthi, Jammu and enquired from her about the employment prospects. Accused and her husband Jasbir Singh assured the complainants that they could manage their appointments in Social Forestry Department and demanded 2.50 lac rupees from each candidate. In the month of July 2010, each candidate had paid one lac rupees and qualification certificates to the accused Mamta Devi at her residence. After a few days, Mamta Devi took all the complainants to Srinagar and produced them in an office where they were asked to submit their joining reports. After submitting their joining reports, the remaining amount of Rs. 1.5 lac on behalf of each candidate was also paid by the complainants to her. The complainants were told by two persons present in that office namely Mohd. Yousaf and Abdul Qayoom that their postings will be ordered soon in their own District and after waiting for one year when the complainants approached the higher authorities, they came to know that their appointment orders were fake. The said Mamta Devi in connivance with other co-accused persons hatched a Criminal Conspiracy and in pursuance to that they fraudulently prepared fictitious appointment orders of Plantation Watcher in Social Forestry Department shown to have been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Srinagar and Chief Conservator of Forests, Srinagar in favour of the Complainants and charged Rs. The said Mamta Devi in connivance with other co-accused persons hatched a Criminal Conspiracy and in pursuance to that they fraudulently prepared fictitious appointment orders of Plantation Watcher in Social Forestry Department shown to have been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Srinagar and Chief Conservator of Forests, Srinagar in favour of the Complainants and charged Rs. 2,50,000/- from each candidate and in this way they cheated the complainants; that during the course of investigation, the then I/O file containing copies of six forged engagement orders shown to have been issued in favour of the complainants as Plantation Watcher in Social Forestry Department by Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Srinagar was seized, the engagements orders issued in favour of the complainants got verified from the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Srinagar and statements of the witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused, namely, Mohd. Yousaf Wani S/o. Abdul Ahad Wani R/o Kunzar Tehsil Tangmarg District Baramulla was arrested in case FIR No. 240/2012 u/s. 420/467/468 RPC of Police Station, Domana whose custody got changed in the instant case on 24.08.2012 and he was taken into custody on the same date from District Jail, Jammu. During investigation, the accused person disclosed that total 60 fake appointments/engagement orders were issued to different aspirants. The names of all these aspirants were got published by the accused persons in the 'Morning Time' Newspaper dated 13.12.2010. He further disclosed that he was paid one lac rupees for each order by the accused Mamta Devi and Abdul Qayoom. During the course of investigation statements of account No. 2073/SB J&K Bank Branch, Kunzar and account No. 11069 J&K Bank Branch, Tangmarg which stand opened in the name of the accused Mohd. Yousaf Wani, were obtained which reveals that w.e.f. April 2010 to June 2012 more than Twenty three lac rupees were deposited/transferred in these accounts; that during the course of investigation conducted so far offence u/s. 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B/RPC have been established against Mamta Devi W/o Jasbir Singh, Mohd. Yousaf Wani S/o. Abdul Ahad Wani R/o Kunzar Tehsil Tangmarg District, Baramulla and Abdul Qayoom Sheikh S/o. Abdul Rehman Sheikh R/o Noor Bagh, Srinagar and others. Yousaf Wani S/o. Abdul Ahad Wani R/o Kunzar Tehsil Tangmarg District, Baramulla and Abdul Qayoom Sheikh S/o. Abdul Rehman Sheikh R/o Noor Bagh, Srinagar and others. During the course of investigation, a complaint was lodged by Suram Chand S/o. Late Tara Chand R/o Raipur Satwari, Jammu, which was also clubbed with the instant case wherein it was alleged that he had also paid Rs. 03 lac to Mst. Mamta Devi for the appointment of Rishu Kumar S/o. Sh. Ashok Kumar and Raghu S/o. Suram Chand R/o Raipur Satwari. The said lady gave them order. After some days he came to know that the order was fake and was not issued by forest department. In this connection the engagement order was got verified from the office of Divisional Forest Officer Social Forestry, Srinagar which has been found forged. During the course of investigation, another complaint lodged by Labu Ram Sagal was also clubbed with the instant case, which was later on referred to Rajouri Police as FIR No. 79/2012 of P/S Dharansal and FIR No. 18/2012 P/S Kalakote have also been registered into the matter. During investigation it has also been found that FIR No. 240/2012 P/S Domana and FIR No. 62/2012 P/S Maisuma Srinagar have also been registered in the same matter. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon 2015 Cri.L.J 2678 case tilted Pawanbala wife of Prem Chand Vs. State of H.P., wherein petitioner being lady was given anticipatory bail in offences u/s. 306/498-A IPC; RCR (Criminal) 1522 case titled Babu Singh v State of Punjab, wherein pre-arrest bail has been granted in offences under section 420/465467/471 IPC. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of the matter and law on the subject. The grounds required to be considered by the court while the person is in custody in non bailable offence/s, are almost the same when court has to consider the application for grant of anticipatory bail. These are the nature and gravity of the accusation; the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he/she has previously been involved in any like offence/s and the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. Anticipatory Bail is generally exercised sparingly in appropriate cases with due care and caution. These are the nature and gravity of the accusation; the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he/she has previously been involved in any like offence/s and the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. Anticipatory Bail is generally exercised sparingly in appropriate cases with due care and caution. A few circumstances under which Anticipatory Bail may be granted are: A special case is made out which would indicate that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the Applicant may be arrested on baseless grounds. The accusations have been made with a dishonest motive or with an intention to cause injury/humiliation to the Applicant and having him so arrested. The allegations against the Applicant are of vague or general nature. But anticipatory Bail may be refused if the prima facie case with which the Applicant has been charged can be made out; the applicant has previously been involved in like offence; where a case can be made out that the applicant is capable of influencing investigation to his advantage; when a case for a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material information likely to be received from the applicant can be made out and when a legitimate case for remand of the Applicant/offender to the police custody is made out against the applicant. 7. In present case, from bare perusal of accusations leveled in various complaints, it is evident that petitioner is very clever, dishonest and a big cheater; she has duped innocent persons of lakhs of money on false assurance of providing jobs in Govt. department; even she along with other accused persons as per prosecution story had prepared 60 fictitious appointment orders and provided these fake appointment orders to various persons; she has been involved in various FIRs; she is thus habitual offenders; applicant is so big cheater that she has even got published the fake appointment list in news paper and also taken some of duped persons to Srinagar for joining on the basis of fake appointment orders. Even her previous bail application has already been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge Jammu on 04.12.2017 by way of detail order; even on 20.11.2018, when I/O appeared along with C/D file stated at bar that petitioner has never attended the investigation as per court direction while granting interim bail on 04.05.2018; on this again petitioner was directed to co-operate with investigation, but again during the hearing of bail application state counsel stated at bar that petitioner has again not complied with court direction. I have also gone through C/D file; prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. C/B has registered the FIR after preliminary verification. 8. In view of above discussion, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. The law cited by counsel for petitioner is not applicable, because in those cases, petitioner was involved in only one case, but in present case petitioner is habitual offender of like offences. 9. This petition is dismissed.