JUDGMENT 1. This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.0316/2022 registered at Police Station - Bhawarkuwa, Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. As per the prosecution story, present applicant's husband Dwarkadish Agrawal is running a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Ashutosh Enterprises and initially present applicant was a partner in the firm as per the Partnership Deed dated 24/12/2012. M/s. Ashutosh Enterprises purchased a land situated at Village Chitawad, Tehsil and District Indore bearing survey No.153/1d/Min-1 and No.153/1[k total admeasuring 0.488 hectare from one Lalchand and Smt. Anuradha for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,95,00,000/-. The said amount was paid through a account payee cheque. On 10/02/2016 a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the Kundanlal Jaiswal and Kundanlal Jaiswal died in the year 2019. On 07/12/2017 present applicant along with other co-accused persons has a criminal conspiracy and prepared a forged and counterfeited partnership deed, which was not signed by the complainant Kishanlal and Kundanlal. Complainant Kishanlal filed a complaint case before the JMFC, Indore and vide order dated 15/03/2022 JMFC, Indore directed the Police Station Bhawarkuwa to register the FIR. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this matter. There is no legal evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the aforementioned offence. There is no allegation made against the applicant in the whole FIR. She has no role in the business. She was merely a non-executive and namesake partner in the firm. She has retired from the said partnership firm on 22/07/2014 and during her tenure in the firm from 24/12/2012 to 22/07/2014 complainant has no business relationship with the applicant and the partnership firm. As per the Partnership Amended Deed dated 22/07/2014 applicant's husband was holding 58% share and Kishanlal and Kundanlal were given share of 21% each. Kundanlal has executed a registered relinquishment deed on 19/12/2017 in favour of the firm and the complainant Kishanlal has signed the registered relinquishment deed as a witness. As per the Partnership Amended Deed dated 22/07/2014 applicant's husband was holding 58% share and Kishanlal and Kundanlal were given share of 21% each. Kundanlal has executed a registered relinquishment deed on 19/12/2017 in favour of the firm and the complainant Kishanlal has signed the registered relinquishment deed as a witness. The handwriting expert K. K. Sahukar has opined in his report that Kishanlal Rai has signed the deed on 07/12/2017. No criminal antecedent has been found against the present applicant and final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper. 4. Per-contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant Kishanlal opposed the anticipatory bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that Dwarkadish misrepresented the complainant Kishanlal and Late Kundanlal. The accused persons also misused the income tax ID of Late Kundanlal by forging his signature on the same. Applicant is also a beneficiary of the fraud committed by the accused Dwarkadish. Present applicant also executed a Partnership Amended Deed dated 07/12/2017. Hence, he prays that anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent - State also opposes the anticipatory bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that proceeding under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. has been drawn against the present applicant and Rs.1,000/- cash reward has been proclaimed in respect of the arrest of the present applicant. Therefore, she is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 6. Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case dairy and the documents produced by both the parties. 7. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation and from perusal of the registered sale deed dated 24/07/2014, it appears that consideration amount of Rs.21,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- was paid before 22/07/2017 and at the time of aforesaid transactions present applicant Nisha Agrawal was a partner in the said partnership firm. Although handwriting expert K. K. Sahukar has submitted his report but he is not appointed by the prosecution for examination of the questioned document. He submitted his report privately. Although handwriting expert K. K. Sahukar has submitted his report but he is not appointed by the prosecution for examination of the questioned document. He submitted his report privately. The report of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 30/05/2022 also supports the prosecution case with an opinion that 'different authorship between the two sets as mentioned in opinion para-IV'. On 07/12/2017 present applicant is impleaded as a new member in the said partnership firm and her share is decided as 42% in the aforesaid partnership deed. 8. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Indore under para 80(a) of the Police Regulation Act passed an order under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. and the present applicant has been declared absconder and proclamation under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against her. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in 2013 Legal Eagle (SC) 927 and the order dated 03/02/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.52228/2020 (Chirag Shah S/o Vinod Kumar Shah Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) by submitting that the aforesaid proclamation was not passed by the JMFC, therefore, proceeding under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. are not valid in nature. 10. In the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 in paragraph No.12 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- '12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as 'absconder'. Normally, when the accused is 'absconding' and declared as a 'proclaimed offender', there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.' In the case of State of M.P. Vs. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.' In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 , the Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance upon the judgment of Lavesh (supra) has held that :- 'It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.' 11. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the prima-facie evidence available on record against the present applicant, at this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicant is absconding in this matter and is declared proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., therefore, she is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 12. In view of the above, without commenting upon the merits of the case, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the first anticipatory bail application preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Certified copy as per rules.