JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Through these anticipatory bail applications, apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Ormanjhi Police Station Case No.190 of 2021 for allegedly committing offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 2. First Information Report being Ormanjhi Police Station Case No.190 of 2021 was registered for offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the written report of the informant Deepak Agarwal (opposite party No.2), stating himself to be the Authorised Representative of Kishor Exports, Kulhi Industrial Area, Ormanjhi. He has stated in the written report that Kishor Exports is a partnership firm involved in manufacturing, export and trade of readymade garments, made ups and textile fabrics. On 21.04.2020, Winc Design Limited, Unit O, 7/F Kaiser Estate Phase III, No.11 Hok Yuen Street, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Procter and Gamble, also known as P&G entered into a fresh purchase agreement for production of textile diapers and other articles for which majority of the raw materials were imported from supplier designated by Winc and the manufactured goods was to be sold primarily in Indian Market. Subsequently WINC started indulging in creating issues on one or other pretext and Kishor Exports was left with no option but to execute a compromise settlement deed dated 31.03.2021 under which the imported goods and procured raw materials were sold on 28.03.2021 to WINC and transported to Fracht India, Bombay who was acting on behalf of WINC. Indian officials of P&G were actively involved along with WINC in multiple matters of this order/Purchase agreement. In May 2021, WINC informed them that they want to send raw material to China for which on their wish informant firm helped them maximum possible, sharing import/procurement documents with details but when WINC asked to help them by issuing an invoice as exporter to China, informant firm refused them saying that the informant firm had already sold the goods to them in end march by invoice No. KD 105 & 106. Even after such refusal, on 03.06.2021, Kishor Exports got information that WINC was exporting the sold goods to China, under the forged / altered invoices (dated 25.05.2021) of Kishore Exports (No.KD-105 & 106) issued for goods sold at Ranchi to WINC (delivery India originally dated 28.03.2021). The invoice was altered in multiple fields without consent of Kishor Exports and the name of the buyer was changed to some entity other than WINC. This was done with an intention to deceive and to use the invoice for enabling the goods to be exported to a third party to whom Kishor Exports had not sold the goods and not received any consideration from. After ascertaining the facts, Kishor Exports registered its objection vide email dated 04.06.2021. This planned use of forged invoices, if executed, could also have caused damage to Kishor Exports by way of Government scrutiny or penalty etc. and has damaged the reputation of Kishor Exports in the eyes of all who came to know about these facts. Due to timely and quick response from Kishor Exports, the exports of goods on forged and fabricated invoices was stopped. On 8 th June, WINC admitted they have altered these invoices. These acts were committed with the knowledge that Kishor Exports were not ready to issue such export invoice. Therefore, WINC has cheated Kishor Exports by fabricated forged invoices. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there are no materials against the petitioners in the entire case. Since the informant has made out a case of forgery and cheating, it is for the informant to establish beyond doubt that it is these petitioners, who had committed the act of forgery. As per him, considering the statement of the informant in the First Information Report and also the other documents collected during investigation, it is clear that if at all there was any forgery or alteration of documents, it was done in China and that too by persons, who were posted at China. Petitioners only facilitated recovery of materials from the informant company when their agreement with WINC failed. They were employees of Procter & Gamble India, a sister concern of WINC, both being subsidiaries of Procter & Gamble USA, thus, only to pressurize the company, this case has been instituted against them. 4. Petitioners only facilitated recovery of materials from the informant company when their agreement with WINC failed. They were employees of Procter & Gamble India, a sister concern of WINC, both being subsidiaries of Procter & Gamble USA, thus, only to pressurize the company, this case has been instituted against them. 4. Learned counsel for the informant-opposite party No.2 submitted that invoices were forged and on the basis of forged invoices textile materials were sought to be transported to China by WINC. WINC approached the informant to give the challan showing that they are the owners of the materials, which, in fact, was not. On refusal, WINC prepared forged invoices, other bills and export documents, by which they tried to show that the informant was exporting the materials, which, actually, was not so. The logistic partner of WINC, i.e., FRACHT, who was handling the issue, was involved in this entire unholy transaction and with the help of their employees at China, the invoices were forged, showing the exporters to be the informants. Thus, exporters invoice was falsely prepared, taking packaging details from FRACHT, which was sent to China. Once the person sitting at China got the packaging details, they prepared the invoices there and sent the same to FRACHT, but, ultimately they could not succeed in their unholy goal. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are employees of Procter & Gamble India and they also knew the entire transactions as email trails clearly substantiate. Since they knew the unholy process adopted by the Companies, they are part of the conspiracy. 5. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State also supported the informant. 6. In order to consider the rival arguments of the parties, I have gone through the records. I find that admittedly, the petitioners are not the employees of WINC, rather they are employees of Procter & Gamble India. There was an agreement between the informant firm and WINC for manufacturing of textile products. WINC is subsidiary of Procter & Gamble USA, so is Procter & Gamble India. The informant had imported raw materials and also procured from India. The order, which was awarded to the informant by WINC was ultimately cancelled, so the agreement was terminated. The informant Company, thus, sold the raw materials, which they had purchased, to WINC. WINC took those materials to Bombay warehouse through FRACHT, which is the logistic partner of WINC. The informant had imported raw materials and also procured from India. The order, which was awarded to the informant by WINC was ultimately cancelled, so the agreement was terminated. The informant Company, thus, sold the raw materials, which they had purchased, to WINC. WINC took those materials to Bombay warehouse through FRACHT, which is the logistic partner of WINC. WINC wanted to export these materials to China and to export the same, an Exporter ’ s Invoice was necessary. WINC informed the informant and approached them for Exporter ’ s Invoice, which the informant refused on the ground that since they are not the owners of raw materials as the same has already been sold by WINC. Thereafter WINC was advised to procure the packaging details so that Exporter ’ s Invoice can be prepared. Same was procured by the company at China to whom the materials were to be sent. Packaging details were obtained through FRACHT and were sent to China. Once the Company at China got the packaging details, they prepared an Exporter ’ s Invoice and sent the same to India. The said invoice showed the informant Company as the exporter. The Exporter ’ s invoice was produced, but due to want of several other documents, export could not materialize as during mean time, informant also got information about preparation of these invoices. 7. Based on the aforesaid facts from the records, I find that if at all there was any forgery that was not committed by these petitioners. The Exporter ’ s Invoice was prepared at China. From one of the emails, it is quite clear that the person at the helm of affairs at China had accepted the mistake of preparing the said Invoices and admitted that the same was done on wrong advice. There is nothing to show that these petitioners had advised any one to prepare forged invoices. The materials against these petitioners is that when the agreement between the informant and WINC failed, these petitioners facilitated return of the raw materials to WINC. 8. During course of argument, the counsel for the opposite parties, heavily, relied upon the emails to suggest that these petitioners knew about the transactions, so they are part of conspiracy. The materials against these petitioners is that when the agreement between the informant and WINC failed, these petitioners facilitated return of the raw materials to WINC. 8. During course of argument, the counsel for the opposite parties, heavily, relied upon the emails to suggest that these petitioners knew about the transactions, so they are part of conspiracy. From the documents, prima facie, I find that the emails never suggest that these petitioners took part in the process, which remotely could suggest that they are involved in creating forged invoices. From the email it is clear that the documents, which the informant is claiming to be forged, were prepared at China. Admittedly, the petitioners are neither the employees of WINC nor of the business entity at China, who wanted to import the materials from India. 9. Considering the aforesaid materials, I am inclined to allow these Anticipatory Bail Applications. The petitioners, abovenamed, are directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of their surrender and/or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Ormanjhi Police Station Case No.190 of 2021, subject to the condition that one of the bailers in respect of each of the petitioners should be a close relative of the petitioner concerned and the other should be a permanent employee of Procter & Gamble India Limited serving in the capacity of Senior Executive or equivalent position and further they shall also file an affidavit before the Court concerned to the effect that they shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.