N.K.JAIN,J. - (1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present matter dispute relates to one 'Will' executed by Smt. Acharaj w/o Ram Prasad on 17th March 1986, in favour of Smt. Shimla wherein petitioner was one of the attesting witness. As per averments in the 'Will', Ram Pratap was to become a successor of Smt. Acharaj Devi and on the death of Ram Pratap the property was to go to Smt. Shimla. Smt. Acharaj and Ram Pratap both have died.
(2.) The complainant has already filed a suit for cancellation of 'Will' in the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, wherein the same 'Will' is a subject matter which is subject matter of this present criminal complaint also, which has been lodged subsequently by the complainant after filing the civil suit. The matter was already subjudiced in the Civil Court before filing the present complaint. More so the present petitioner is only an attesting witness and he is not the beneficiary.
(3.) The bail application has been opposed by learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Their contention is that petitioner is a witness to a so called forged 'Will', therefore, he is also an accused under section 120B, I.P.C.;