JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record to the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an illiterate person. The petitioner can only put signatures and taking advantage of that, an agreement to sale of the land was prepared at the instance of the complainant. Petitioner is not possessing any plot rather he is not intended to execute the agreement, signatures was put only for the purpose of obtaining loan through the complainant. It is stated that if agreement to sale would have been executed by the petitioner, then at least some documents pertaining to land should have been taken by the complainant whereas there exists no such document. Thus, the petitioner, who has falsely been implicated in the matter and is behind the bars for last 9 days, may be enlarged on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant has opposed the bail application and submits that petitioner took a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under an agreement and sold the plot taking advantage of his friendship, thus the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 4. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise effect the outcome of the trial, but looking to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail and accordingly, the bail application is accepted and I consider it just and proper to release the accused/petitioner namely, Ramesh Chand s/o Chitar Mal on bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code in F.I.R. No.205/09 registered at police station Harmada, Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 406 Indian Penal Code provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.Application allowed. *******