ORDER : 1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 438 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 171/2005 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. A criminal case No. 171/2005 was registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC on receipt of a complaint under section 156(3) CrPC filed by one Mahendra Kumar Johari through Chairman Director Johari Jewels Private Limited stating that M/s. Johari Jewels Private Limited is a registered company wherein apart from the complainant Govind Johari, Smt. Sita Johari, Ghasilal Choudhary and Gopal Johari were the Directors. There is a property of the Company i.e. C-7, Prithviraj Marg, C-Scheme, which was purchased through registered sale deed in the year 1997 with the amount invested by all the three brothers including the father of the accused petitioner. It was further stated that one of the Director namely; Ghasi Lal Choudhary was issued a notice for removing from Directorship and Ghasi Lal Choudhary was removed from the Directorship by Resolution dated 27.04.2005 and by another Resolution dated 21.03.2005 another Director Govind Johari-father of the petitioner (since dead) was also removed from the Directorship. It is alleged that after removal of Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) from the Directorships, they conspired to grab the property of the Company in an illegal manner inducting various persons as Directors as well as Addl. Directors of the Company and thereafter on 12.05.2005 a lease deed was executed in favour of the accused petitioner for a rent of Rs.25,000/- per month. In this manner the accused petitioner has committed the forgery. 3. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that when the complaint was filed in the year 2005, the accused petitioner was around 19 years of age and was busy in his study. Senior Counsel further submitted that so as to look after the business interest, a Power of Attorney was given to Govind Johari (since dead) which was registered on 27.09.2005. Senior Counsel further submitted that so as to look after the business interest, a Power of Attorney was given to Govind Johari (since dead) which was registered on 27.09.2005. Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no role of the accused petitioner in any manner in getting the lease deed of the property in question, so no offence is made out against the petitioner. Senior Counsel further submitted that the issue in regard to removal of the Directors namely; Gopal Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) by the complainant party and also induction of new Directors and Addl. Directors by the co-accused Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) is pending before the NCLT and therein it would be decided that who are the legally valid Directors. Senior Counsel further submitted that the investigation of the matter is pending for the last 19 years and has been assigned to various Officers during various period breaks. Senior Counsel further submitted that at one point of time the investigation was handed over to SOG and also to CID (CB) and once the investigation is conducted by the SOG or CID (CB) no further re-investigation can be made by the Officers of the District or Range Police and such investigation will be illegal. Senior Counsel also submitted that various Police Officers who investigated into the matter and also submitted the Final Negative Reports but on behest of the complainant the investigation was transferred to other Police Officers because the complainant is having highhandedness with the Superior Authority. Senior Counsel further submitted that even if the contents of the FIR are taken to be correct then also the petitioner in no manner is connected with any kind of forgery. Senior Counsel further submitted that a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for which he is regularly paying the rent as per the terms and conditions. 4. Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner on various occasions participated in the investigation and he has been interrogated and therefore, the custodial interrogation cannot be said to be justified and therefore, the petitioner deserves for benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner after thorough investigation, has been found to be proved. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner after thorough investigation, has been found to be proved. The Police after conclusion of investigation has already filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 299 CrPC as the petitioner was hiding himself. Counsel for the complainant further submitted that the accused petitioner has fraudulently got the lease deed executed in his favour by the persons namely; Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) after making conspiracy with other persons. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused petitioner does not deserve indulgence for anticipatory bail. 6. Considered the submissions made by Senior Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the other material available on the record along-with the bail application. 7. As per the contents of the FIR, the main allegations are against co-accused Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) who said to have made conspiracy. The only averment in the FIR as regards the present accused petitioner is that co-accused granted a lease of the property in question in favour of the petitioner and there is nothing on the record that how the accused petitioner was a party to such conspiracy. It has also come on record that at the relevant time when the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, he was only 19 years of age and was engaged in his studies and so as to look after his interests he had given Power of Attorney to the co-accused Govind Johari-father of the petitioner (since dead). 8. It has also come on record that the investigation of the case is pending for the last more than 19 years and in the meantime the petitioner has gone Abroad and came back to India so many times which speaks that there are least chances of his absconding or flying way. 9. Apart from this bail application, there are two other bail applications in relation to two criminal cases, which have been heard by this Court and in those matters it has come out that the accused petitioner on various occasions appeared before the Investigating Officer and was interrogated. 9. Apart from this bail application, there are two other bail applications in relation to two criminal cases, which have been heard by this Court and in those matters it has come out that the accused petitioner on various occasions appeared before the Investigating Officer and was interrogated. In the present case, no status report has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor as like other two cases but having regard to the facts that the accused petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officers in two other cases on number of occasions, it will be presumed that he has also been interrogated in the present case also and the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has stated that the petitioner is always ready to cooperate with the investigation in future also. 10. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been implicated in the criminal case on the basis of the fact that the alleged lease deed was executed in his favour and the complainant party has already filed a civil suit with a challenge to the lease deed having taken all the grounds including the grounds mentioned in the FIR. The matter is still pending before the Competent Court for adjudication. 11. The Criminal Case was registered in the year 2005 and the investigation is going on for the last 19 years. The petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has been interrogated and has already submitted the relevant documents which were available with him in connection with the allegations. During course of arguments Senior Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that talks continued between the parties for about one year for compromise. This fact was admitted by the counsel appearing for the complainant also. Putting and keeping sword of arrest on the neck of a person for such a long period is more than the punishment provided under the law for the offences alleged against the petitioner. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it will not be justified in any manner to allow the Investigating Agency to arrest the petitioner and more particularly when he has already been interrogated and he is also ready to cooperate with the investigation. 12. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it will not be justified in any manner to allow the Investigating Agency to arrest the petitioner and more particularly when he has already been interrogated and he is also ready to cooperate with the investigation. 12. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and the facts stated above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, allow the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused petitioner u/S 438 Cr.P.C. and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Harshvardhan Johari S/o Shri Govind Johari in connection with FIR No. 171/2005 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) that the petitioner 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. (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.