JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material/record of the case made available to me during arguments of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the from the FIR itself, it is clear that the so called transaction took place on 7.2.1994 and final settlement with Ashok Kumar took place on 17.1.1995. Thereafter, there was no allegation that the petitioner did not execute the sale-deed in favour of the complainant. He further submits that the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant party on 6.3.2005 only for the reason that the petitioner filed a written report dated 11.2.2005 against the complainant party. 3. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case of and without expressing any opinion into the merits and demerits of the case, I am inclined to allow the bail application of the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.RC. 4. Therefore, the SHO/I.O. of Police Station, Amer District Jaipur is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Ishwar Lal Sharma in FIR No. 65/2005, registered u/ss. 420 and 408 IPC, he shall enlarge him on bail provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) He shall make themselves available for interrogation by I.O. as and when requires; (ii) He shall not, directly make any 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; (iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Bail granted. *******