JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought bail in F.I.R. No. 171/2006 pending investigation at Police Station, Sangaria for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has got no connection whatsoever with the tractor which is alleged to have been sold by the petitioner and one Kuldeep. It has further been contended that Kuldeep was arrested and he has now been sent to the judicial custody. He also submits that the persons responsible for selling of the tractor is the complainant and his son. Learned counsel submits that the statement of Smt.Sulochana is of no consequence to show the involvement of the petitioner in relation of selling of the tractor, therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. The incident is said to be of year 2004 and for last two years, police could not arrest the petitioner that also shows that Police Authority is not keen to arrest the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in this case the petitioner along with one Kuldeep went at the house of the complainant on 30.3.2004 and persuaded him to take tractor on loan from the Bank. It has also been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that it was agreed between the parties that instalment will be paid by Kuldeep and ultimately the tractor will be the property of Kuldeep. According to learned Public Prosecutor, Kuldeep was not having sufficient land to take the loan as such persuaded the complainant to obtain loan from the Bank. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that Atmaram and Kuldeep both subsequently sold the tractor to some third person and as such no money whatsoever in relation to tractor was received by the complainant and they have committed cheating. 5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. In the statement of Smt. Sulochana, it has come that some papers were signed in relation to selling of the tractor in question by the persons who obtained loan for the purchase of tractor and the complainant and her son put their thumb impressions on the alleged sale document. 6. In the statement of Smt. Sulochana, it has come that some papers were signed in relation to selling of the tractor in question by the persons who obtained loan for the purchase of tractor and the complainant and her son put their thumb impressions on the alleged sale document. In the above circumstances, even if the petitioner was present in the capacity as witness then also it cannot be said that the petitioner sold the tractor of the complainant party. 7. Be that as it,may, since main allegation is against Kudeelp and he has already been arrested and sent to judicial custody and nothing has been brought to notice of the Court that Atmaram was responsible in connection with the sale of the said tractor, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused petition on anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant Aatmaram son of Shri Sohan Lal by I.O./S.H.O. in F.I.R. No. 171/2006 pending investigation P.S. Sangaria, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer on the following conditions: (x) That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (xi) That he shall not, directly or indirectly, 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 and; (xii) That he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Anticipatory bail application allowed. *******