Order : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. The present criminal misc. bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur passed in Bail Application No.546/2021, by which the learned Judge has allowed the bail application of the accused respondent Pushpa Devi arising out of FIR No.283/2011 lodged at Police Station Phalodi, District Jodhpur for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that initially the Police submitted Final Report in this case. Subsequently, however, the Police secured signature of the respondent Pushpa Devi and forwarded it for FSL. According to the FSL Report it has been determined the signature attributed to the respondent Pushpa Devi is indeed a forgery, thereby establishing that an offence has been committed by respondent No.2. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted by the learned trial court to the respondent No.2 Pushpa Devi may kindly be cancelled. 3. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 is a women aged about 80 years, who has fully cooperated with the ongoing investigation. Furthermore, there is no need for any recovery to be made from the possession of the respondent No.2. It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent No.2 is afflicted by age related health issues, therefore, it is urged that the present bail cancellation application filed by the petitioner-complainant may kindly be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record. 5. The factual report dated 31.01.2025 has been received from the Police Station Phalodi, District Phalodi revealed that initially the Final Report has been filed by the Police against the respondent No.2 but later found to be involved in the offence through forensic analysis of her signature. 5. The factual report dated 31.01.2025 has been received from the Police Station Phalodi, District Phalodi revealed that initially the Final Report has been filed by the Police against the respondent No.2 but later found to be involved in the offence through forensic analysis of her signature. Despite this, she has been on anticipatory bail application since 25.08.2021 and in compliance of it, she joined the investigation; the respondent No.2-Pushpa Devi is 80 years old lady; followed the instructions given by the trial Court; and looking to the physical and mental condition of respondent No.2-Pushpa Devi, the Court opinion that mere establishment of a prima facie offence does not automatically warrant the cancellation of anticipatory bail, as such a decision must be grounded in comprehensive judicial reasoning and the contextual nuances of each case. The court must consider several factors, including the nature of offence, the allegation involved, the likelihood of the accused fleeing and the potential for tampering with evidence. Additionally, a prima facie case does not equate to conclusive guilt; it merely indicates that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. Thus, without compelling evidence of flight risk, evasion of justice or tampering with the investigation, the cancellation of anticipatory bail may be considered an infringement on the fundamental rights of the individual. Therefore, no case for grant of cancellation of bail is made out. 6. Hence, the present bail cancellation application filed by the petitioner-complainant is hereby dismissed.