JUDGMENT 1. - Heard and considered. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was a severe mistake of fact that the identity of Dev Kishan has been described as Dev Kishan s/o Chunni Lal instead Dev Kishan s/o Mohan Lal. He further contends that Chunni Lal who is khatedar of the disputed land regarding which this dispute arose, has already been allowed to be released on bail and, therefore, it was a bottafide mistake of identity of Dev Kishan, who was a power of attorney on behalf of Chunni Lal. Therefore, no offences are made out. Besides, the present accused-petitioner did not stand to benefit from the alleged miss identity and consequential sale-deed alleged to have been executed as authorised by Chunni Lal, executing a deed of power of attorney in favour of the accused- petitioner. 3. Learned P.P. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have countered these arguments mainly on the ground that Chunni Lal, initially, who is admittedly `khatedar' of the disputed land on which the proposed plot to be mined is situated; entered into an agreement thereby agreeing to sell the said plot of land against the consideration of Rs. 80,000/- already received by him. On the other hand, anyhow, with the connivance of Chunni Lal, to deprive Ashok Kumar of the right of mining the said plot, the power of attorney was executed in favour of Dev Kishan s/o Chunni Lal, a non-existent identity and, accordingly Dev Kishan on the basis of said power of attorney, subsequently, representing himself to be Dev Kishan s / o Chunni Lal instead Dev Kishan s/ o Mohan Lal further executed sale deed in favour of Rajendra Prasad. Chunni Lal had already entered into an agreement to sell the said land, as above, to Ashok Kumar. 4. Therefore, learned P.P. as well as the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that accused-petitioner acted dishonestly and fraudulently while entering into an agreement to cheat Ashok Kumar and, accordingly, he also personated as Dev Kishan s/o Chunni Lal. Consequently, there is a serious case of cheating and impersonation as such and this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 5. On careful consideration of the aforesaid arguments and investigation record, presently, it cannot be held that the allegations made against the accused-petitioner and also under investigation are baseless or without substance. Consequently, there is a serious case of cheating and impersonation as such and this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 5. On careful consideration of the aforesaid arguments and investigation record, presently, it cannot be held that the allegations made against the accused-petitioner and also under investigation are baseless or without substance. Accordingly, this is not a fit case for granting bail and, therefore, this petition is dismissed. Bail application dismissed. *******