Order : 1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-applicants under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Court below’) in connection with FIR No.1246/2013, registered at Police Station Moti Doongari, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 448, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC by which the bail application of the accused-applicants under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. , 2023 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submitted that the accused-applicants have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants further submitted that the FIR No.1246/2013 was lodged on 17.11.2013 against them and after investigation, the police submitted its first negative Final Report on 29.04.2015 and the second negative Final Report was submitted thereafter. Learned counsel also submitted that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Magistrate’) has ordered for re-investigation in this matter, however learned Magistrate has no power to direct the police to ‘re-investigate’ in the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants argued that in this matter, charges levelled against the accused-applicants are that the accused-applicants have purchased a house from one Manju Khuteta. Learned counsel further argued that the said house was purchased through a registered sale deed on 27.12.2012 for the value of Rs.55,00,000/- and whole of the amount was paid through Cheques, which is evident from the sale deed itself. Learned counsel also submitted that before purchasing the said house, the applicants published a general notice in the local newspaper dated 09.12.2012 stating therein that the applicants are going to purchase the said house. Therefore, the applicants are bonafide purchasers of the said house. Learned counsel also argued that a civil suit has also been filed by the complainant for cancellation of the sale deed, which is pending before a competent Civil Court in Jaipur. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants contended that after submission of the negative Final Reports twice and after the order passed by the learned Magistrate for ‘re-investigation’ in the matter, the police is going to arrest the accused-applicants. Learned counsel further contended that the accused-applicants are husband and wife of above 60 years of age and they are Doctors by profession and they are practicing in Jaipur for last more than 35 years. Learned counsel further contended that the accused-applicants are husband and wife of above 60 years of age and they are Doctors by profession and they are practicing in Jaipur for last more than 35 years. For last four months, the accused-applicants have joined the investigation, therefore, the accused-applicants be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while vehemently opposing this bail application, submitted that the accused-applicants purchased the house in question without ascertaining and inquiring about chain of the documents of the house in question. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted so-called seller of the house, Manju Khuteta, had no power to sale the house as she was neither the owner of the house, nor she was authorized to sale the house in question, therefore, the bail application filed by the accused-applicants be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This is an admitted position in this case that the impugned FIR was lodged in the year 2013, and after thorough investigation, the police has filed negative Final Report twice. 8. Admittedly, Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant are not in a position to dispute the fact that after investigation, negative Final Reports was submitted twice in this matter and after submission of the negative Final Report, learned Magistrate has ordered for re-investigation in this case, which is evident from perusal of the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this Court in Manju Khuteta (supra) S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.2115/2024 (Manju Khuteta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.). The order dated 21.01.2025 is taken on record. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the applicants are senior citizens and they have joined the investigation and also that there is no requirement of any custodial interrogation in this matter, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. ,2023 is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants (1) Dr. Subha Sethia W/o Dr. Ramesh Sethia and (2) Dr. 10. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. ,2023 is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants (1) Dr. Subha Sethia W/o Dr. Ramesh Sethia and (2) Dr. Ramesh Sethia S/o Gopilal Sethia in connection with FIR No.1246/2013, registered at Police Station Moti Doongari, Jaipur, the accused- applicants shall be released on bail, provided that each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions:- (1) that the accused-applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before a police officer as and when required; (2) that the accused-applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and (3) that the accused-applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.