JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for accused petitioners as well as complainant, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, perused the case diary and other material produced during the course of arguments. 2. Learned counsel for accused petitioners contended that they have falsely been implicated in this matter, they are not the beneficiaries and it is only alleged that they were middle men in selling and purchasing the disputed plot. It is also submitted that they were not knowing that the 'Patta' of the disputed plot was not valid. It is also submitted that only on 31.1.2006 the so called 'Patta' was declared void by the Arbitrator & Registrar of the Cooperative Tribunal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the bail application and contended that the accused petitioners are the main instruments of this land dealing and knowingly they persuaded the complainant to purchase the land which was not owned by the co-accused Magan Singh and they were having a forged 'Patta'. It is also submitted that thereafter a cheque was given to the complainant but on the next date the account was got closed and the said cheque was dishonoured. 4. Without making any observation on merits, having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, nature of accusation, material on record, all other facts and circumstances and also keeping in view the involvement of the accused petitioners in this matter, I do not deem it proper to give them the benefit of pre-arrest bail.The bail application is rejected accordingly.Bail Application Rejected. *******