JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 64 of 2023, registered at police station Rajpur, District Dehradun. 2. The case of the prosecution is that three cheques were given by the informant to Smt. Veena Sharma, mother of the applicant no. 1. The said cheques were stolen by the applicants. Applicant no. 2 is the wife of the applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 3 is the close friend of the applicant no. 1. An amount of Rs. six lakh-six lakh was written in each of the cheques. Applicants added the word “nine” before “six lac only.” The disputed cheques were examined by a private handwriting expert. During the investigation, the disputed cheques were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After filing the charge-sheet, the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) against the applicant no. 1-Arjun Sharma and cognizance has been taken under Section 506 and Section 120B IPC against Smt. Abhilasha Sharma, the applicant no. 2 and Surinder Singh Chauhan, the applicant no. 3. 3. Heard Ms. Kavya Mehrishi with Mr. Mayank Datta, learned counsel for applicants, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for State and Ms. Manisha Bhandari with Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for informant-victim. 4. Ms. Kavya Mehrishi, Advocate, contended that the disputed cheques were first examined by a private handwriting expert at the behest of the informant/victim. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is inconclusive. No reliable or cogent evidence against the applicants are on the record. Applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. They are permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding. The present case rests on the documentary evidence and all the relevant documents have already been filed by the Investigating Officer along with charge-sheet, and, the applicants have not misused the terms and conditions, imposed by this Court on 20.04.2023, at the time of granting Interim Anticipatory Bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for State and Ms. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for State and Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Advocate, submitted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is conclusive. 6. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicants-Arjun Sharma, Smt. Abhilasha Sharma and Surinder Singh Chauhan are directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing their personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions: (i) Applicants shall attend the Trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case. (iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court. 8. It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. 9. Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 218 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.