S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.3877/2006 Date : 06.09.2006 HON'BLE MR. SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK, J. Mr. S.S. Bhati for the applicant. Mr. Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor for State. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that allegations under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC have not been made out against the accused applicant. He submits that in the Health Department certificates were submitted by her for obtaining job and after inquiry, it was found that the documents were forged. In this regard, he submits that she did not prepare the documents, therefore, she may be given benefit of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in the present case fact of the matter is that for procuring the benefit forged documents have been submitted and matter is pending investigation, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application moved by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. (SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK), J. vij