JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No. 501/2016 of Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is purely of civil nature. It is also submitted that in relation to the disputed properties civil suits have already been filed by both the parties which are pending consideration before the competent civil court. 4. It is argued that petitioner Mahaveer Prasad is the bona fide purchaser and he cannot be held guilty for commission of any crime because he was not supposed to aware about the fact that patta issued in favour of grandfather of petitioner Yadvendra Singh was forged. It is also submitted that petitioner Yadvendra Singh also cannot be said to be in knowledge that the patta issued in favour of his grandfather Pratap Singh decades before was forged. It is submitted that at every stage, petitioners have co-operated with the investigation, therefore, they shall be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that as a matter of fact, petitioner Yadvendra Singh had sold two properties situated in the same location to the Mahaveer Prasad while claiming that the said properties belongs to his grandfather and after his death are falling into his share. It is submitted that in relation to those two properties two FIRs have been filed on behalf of the complainant, one is the present FIR and another is FIR No. 502/2016. It is argued that allegation in both the FIRs are common and this court has already dismissed the anticipatory bail application of petitioner Yadvendra Singh in FIR No. 502/2016. It is also submitted that petitioner Yadvendra Singh had approached the Honble Supreme Court with a prayer for releasing him on anticipatory bail in FIR No. 502/2016, however, SLP filed by him has been dismissed. 6. It is also submitted that petitioner Yadvendra Singh had approached the Honble Supreme Court with a prayer for releasing him on anticipatory bail in FIR No. 502/2016, however, SLP filed by him has been dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the case diary and after taking into consideration the fact that in FIR No. 502/2016, containing similar allegations, as in the present FIR, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner Yadvendra Singh has been rejected up to Honble Supreme court, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are rejected.