JUDGMENT 1. - Heard 2. A criminal complaint was filed by complainant Bhupendra Mittal on 10.7.96, which was forwarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the concerned Police Station, upon which FIR No. 185/96 was registered. The Police after investigation, submitted F.R. The Court again ordered for reinvestigation. The Police again submitted F.R. No. 84/99 on 26.05.99, against which a protest petition was filed on 29.9.99. The Court took cognizance on 24.8.2001 and issued process, thereby summoning the accused. 3. The facts of the case are that father of the petitioners purchased disputed property from one Gordhan Lal, father of the complainant for Rs. 38,000/- vide agreement to sale dated 1.12.1951 and paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. Rest of the amount was to be paid in instalments. However, he failed to pay the instalments. Later on, on 17.7.1956 a mortgage deed was executed. The property in dispute was in the name of Gordhan Lal, in whose name a patta was issued on 27.7.1943 by the Municipal Board. It is alleged that the mortgaged amount was paid through cheques and after considering the above facts, final report was submitted by the police. At present the property is entered in favour of the State Government. 4. It is content ed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no offence under Sections 420-B and 467 IPC is made out. The case is of civil nature. According to the learned counsel, even if any offence is made out from the allegations, it would not travel beyond Section 199 or 423 IPC. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the complainant has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the bail application. He contended that since process has been issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the application u/s. 438 Cr. PC. is not maintainable. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in Ashok Kumar & others v. State of Orissa, (II(2000) CCR 526) and in Bhoja Singh @ Bhoj Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj) 1) . Learned counsel further contended that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. have to be sparingly used in rarest of the rares cases and in support of this argument he has relied upon a decision of this court in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, (RLW 1996 (1) Raj. 628). 6. v. State of Rajasthan, (2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj) 1) . Learned counsel further contended that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. have to be sparingly used in rarest of the rares cases and in support of this argument he has relied upon a decision of this court in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, (RLW 1996 (1) Raj. 628). 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even in cases where the cognizance of a non-bailable offence has been taken by a Magistrate and the warrants have been issued for his arrest, it is open for the High Court of the Court of Sessions to exercise the powers under Section 438 Cr.RC. and the provisions of Section 438 Cr.RC. therefore, do not stand excluded. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on number of decisions reported in 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj) 30, 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj) 38, 1986 CRL.L.J.1303, 1986 CR.L.J.,1310, 1985 Cr.L.J. 897 and 1998 Cr.L.J. 3969. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the facts as stated above, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the accused petitioners should be extended the benefit of Section 438 Cr.PC. 8. Therefore, the SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Office of Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Guru Charan Singh (2) Rajendra Singh and Harkeerat Singh all sons of Late Shri Jaswant Singh in FIR No. 185/96 of the aforesaid Police Station be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sound sureties of Rs. 1C 000/- each to the satisfaction of concerned SHO on the following conditions. 1. that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 2. that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. 3. that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Application allowed. *******