ORDER : 1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 438 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 144/2005 registered at Police Station Moti Doongari, District Jaipur for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments submitted a status report dated 07.07.2024 with regard to the investigation of the criminal case bearing FIR No. 144/2005 registered at Police Station Moti Doongari, District Jaipur, which is taken on record. 3. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that a criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner after much thoughts by filing a complaint before the Court of learned Civil Judger (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in the year 2005. Senior Counsel further submitted that at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2005 the accused petitioner was 19 years of age and was a student. Senior Counsel further submitted that after registration of the criminal case the investigation in the matter has been assigned to as many as 19 Police Officers of which four of them have proposed Final Negative Reports. Senior Counsel also submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is getting a lease deed of the alleged property i.e. Hind Hotel in his favour in collusion with his father Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghashi Lal Choudhary (since dead), who favoured him and illegally changed the Board of Directors and appointed Additional Directors for the said purpose. The issue of induction of new Directors or Additional Directors and removal of some Directors namely; Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) by the complainant party is pending before the NCLT. It is further submitted that on various occasions the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and he has been interrogated and now sending him for custodial investigation is not in any manner can be said to be justifiable. Senior Counsel further submitted that to look after the business interest of the petitioner, the petitioner has given a Power of Attorney to his father-Govind Johari (since dead) which was registered on 27.09.2005. 4. Senior Counsel further submitted that to look after the business interest of the petitioner, the petitioner has given a Power of Attorney to his father-Govind Johari (since dead) which was registered on 27.09.2005. 4. Senior Counsel also submitted that as per the Government Circular dated 06.01.2019 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Home, the investigation of a criminal case could be transferred from one Officer to other on a representation of any party but such transfer of investigation cannot be transferred to more than three Officers but in the present case even after proposal of Final Negative Reports by the four Investigating Officers the investigation was further transferred to certain Officers. Naturally the same must be on behest of the complainant because conclusion of the investigation was not as per his wishes. Senior Counsel further submitted that though the lease deed was given in favour of the petitioner while he was a student and has given Power of Attorney to his father-Govind Johari (since dead), and the said lease deed has been given in favour of the petitioner by the Directors of the Company by taking a Resolution. So neither it can be said to be illegal in any manner nor it can be said to be a crime. 5. Senior Counsel also submitted that having taking into consideration the allegations as stated in the FIR registered through a complaint, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is always ready to cooperate with the investigation and he never intended to hide himself. It is further submitted that the petitioner is going Abroad and coming back to India in the last 19 years during pendency of the investigation, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused petitioner may abscond. 6. The learned Public Prosecution assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that after due and fair investigation, the offences were found to be proved against the petitioner and the Police after investigation filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner under section 299 CrPC. It is further submitted by them that the petitioner is hiding himself and therefore, he does not deserve for benefit of anticipatory bail and his custodial interrogation is required in the matter. 7. It is further submitted by them that the petitioner is hiding himself and therefore, he does not deserve for benefit of anticipatory bail and his custodial interrogation is required in the matter. 7. 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. 8. The allegation against the petitioner is that co-accused Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) by inducting some persons as new Directors and Addl. Directors in the Company Maharaja Ganga Singh Hotel & Resorts Private Limited fraudulently got a lease deed of the property known as Hind Hotel in favour of the petitioner on a rent of Rs.75,000/- per month for a period of 20 years. It was further stated in the complaint filed by one Naresh Johari that he was the Director in the Company upto 05.05.2005 along-with other Directors namely; Govind Johari (since dead), Gopal Johari and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead). The Directors namely; Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) were removed being the Directors of the Company vide resolution dated 02.03.2005 and the matter was reported to the Registrar of Companies, Jaipur. It is further averred that Govind Johari (since dead) and Ghasi Lal Choudhary (since dead) after inducting some persons as new Directors and Addl. Directors executed lease deed in favour of the petitioner so as to grab the property of the Company. 9. The complaint was filed on 24.06.2005 by Naresh Johari who himself states that he was the Director in the Company and was removed on 05.05.2005. When complainant Naresh Johari was removed from the Company vide Resolution dated 05.05.2005 then what was the occasion for him to file this complaint. 10. It has also come out from the facts of the matter that against the lease deed dated 13.05.2005 the complainant party so as to challenge the aforesaid lease deed has filed a civil suit before the Civil Court which is still pending for adjudication and no interim order has been passed by the Concerned Court against the petitioner. It is the civil court which can adjudicate the legality and validity of alleged lease deed and till that it shall be presumed to be legal and valid. 11. It is the civil court which can adjudicate the legality and validity of alleged lease deed and till that it shall be presumed to be legal and valid. 11. The petitioner has also placed on record the status report dated 07.07.2024 which clearly shows that as many as 19 Police Officers were deputed in various periods for investigation of the matter. In the year 2007 one of the Police Officer came to the conclusion that since the matter is pending before the Registrar of Companies, it would not be possible for him to prove that the accused petitioner has committed any forgery. Two Police Officers in the year 2009 on two separate occasions proposed Final Negative Reports saying that the matter is of civil nature. Again in the year 2023 one of the Police Officer proposed Final Negative Report saying the matter is of civil nature. 12. It is very interesting to note that there being the Circular of the State Government for not transferring the investigation from one Officer to other Officer beyond maximum three Officers but in the present case the investigation has been transferred to as many as 19 Officers in various periods which speaks of some hanky-panky with the Investigating Agency and when Final Negative Reports have been proposed on various occasions by various officers then it seems that the investigation is further transferred to the Investigating Officer for no disclosed good reasons and it can be presumed that it may be on behest of the complainant party. 13. During the course of arguments, the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that the talks carried on between the parties for negotiation for a long period but it could not be concluded positively because of some stringent conditions imposed by the complainant party. The fact in regard to talks for negotiation between the parties was not controverted by the counsel for the complainant. In the status report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, there are specific mentions about the proposal of Final Negative Reports by various Police Officers. The extract of the status report is quoted as under: 14. As regards the allegations of induction and removal of Directors against the petitioners are concerned, he is not connected in any manner because he was never the Director of the Company as is evident from the status report. 15. The extract of the status report is quoted as under: 14. As regards the allegations of induction and removal of Directors against the petitioners are concerned, he is not connected in any manner because he was never the Director of the Company as is evident from the status report. 15. The accused petitioner has been interrogated by the Investigating Officers on various occasions as has been stated at page 20 of the status report. The relevant extract is quoted as under: 16. It has also come out on record that the petitioner is depositing the rent as per the lease deed in the Court of District & Sessions Judge No. 13 (at present No. 4 Jaipur Metro) since 2015, so it cannot be said that the petitioner is trying to embezzle the amount which is to be paid to the Company. 17. 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). 18. 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. 19. In view of the above and without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner. 19. In view of the above and without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner. Accordingly the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused petitioner u/S 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed, 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. 144/2005 registered at Police Station Moti Doongari, District Jaipur 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.