ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of MCre Nos. 490/08, 491/08, 492/08, 493/08 494/08,495/08, 496/08, 497/08,498/08, 499/08, 500/08,501/08, 502/08, 503/08, 504/08, 505/08, 506/08, 507/08, 508/08, 509/08,510/08,511/08,512/08,513/08,514/08, 515/08, 516/08, 517/08, 518/08, 519/08, 520/08, 521/08, 522/08, 523/08, 524/08, 525/08, 526/ 08,527/08,528/08, 529/08, 530/08, 531/08, 532/08, 533/08, 534/08, 535/ 08,536 /08,537/ 08,538/08,539/08,540/08,541/08,542/08,543/08,544/ 08,545/ 08,546/ 08,547/ 08,548/08. 2. Both parties heard. 3. This is first application filed u/s. 439 of CrPC for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 458/07, registered by Police Kotwali, Khargone, u/Ss.420, 467, 468, 469,471 r/w. S. 34, 120-B of the IPC. It is alleged that some forged sale deeds on the basis of false documents were presented before present applicant for registration, who was working at the relevent time as a Sub Registrar, It is alleged that present applicant was also having criminal conspiracy with other accused persons or was sharing common intention with other persons and because of that criminal conspiracy or common intention false documents were registered on the basis of forged documents for the sale of a revenue paying land. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the provisions of Ss. 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, present applicant being Sub Registrar was having no authority to inquire about the title of the land which was being sold. He was only required to satisfy himself regarding the identity of the person appearing before him and claiming that he has executed the documents. It is also required to be seen by him that the stamp duty as per the valuation has been paid or not. He cannot hold up inquiry regarding the title of the seller and cannot direct the authority to hold such inquiry. In this regard learned counsel has drawn attention of this .Court towards the certified copy of the judgment of this High Court passed in MP No. 1638/1993 dated 22.7.1994 in which the Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble the Chief Justice has quashed the order of Sub Registrar who refused to register a document on the basis of directions issued by the Additional Collector on the ground that the land belongs to Government. It is held that Sub Registrar has no authority to examine question of title to the land in question and refused registration of documents on this ground. It is held that Sub Registrar has no authority to examine question of title to the land in question and refused registration of documents on this ground. Attention is also drawn towards the reported judgment of a Single Bench of this Court passed in the case of Ramprasad Yadav v. State of M.P. Reported in [ 2002 (II) MPWN 74 ]. In that case also it has been held that at the time of registration of the documents, Registrar is only required to see that the person shown in the sale deed is executing the document or not and he is not required to investigate the title of the seller. 5. It has also been argued that the applicant has been released on bail in some other cases of similar nature by another Bench. Attention has been drawn towards the order dated 21.11.2007, passed in MCre Nos. 6073/07 and 6074/07, and order dated 13.12.2007 passed in MCrC Nos. 6875/07, 6876/07 and 6877/07. 6. I have considered the aforesaid arguments and perused the material collected by police during investigation. Present applicant is a public servant and was working as a Sub Registrar at the relevant time. There is no possibility of his absconsion and he is ready and prepared to face the trial. The case is based on documentary evidence and its disposal will take time because all the offences are triable by JMFC and keeping in mind all these circumstances and the legal position of the subject, I deem it a fit case for grant of bail. Therefore the application is allowed and it is ordered that applicant Surendra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf during the pendency of trial. 7. He is also directed to abide the conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) of CrPC.