JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:- Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners – Ajay Kumar and Siri Bhagwan seek regular bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Bala Ram, who has alleged that on 19.11.2007, 4 Kanals 10 Marlas of land situated in village Joniawas was transferred by way of sale in favour of the petitioners by getting someone to impersonate as a seller namely Jhangi Ram. Mutation of sale was sanctioned on 10.1.2008. It is alleged that Girdawari of the land for the last 50 years is in the name of Ram Chander and in fact the entire area was in cultivating possession of Ramphal and after his death, the land is in possession of Brahm Parkash, Narain Singh, Chander Parkash and Bala Ram (complainant) sons of Ramphal. The accused had connived with Ram Chander and got the Girdawari of the area cancelled whereas the persons in possession are not being summoned nor their statements recorded. In this way, Ram Chander has been helping and conniving with the accused. It is submitted that there is no person by the name of Jhangi Ram who has executed the sale deed. 4. The petitioners, it is submitted have purchased the land for a consideration of Rs 5,62,500/-. The complainant on the one hand, it is submitted alleges that the Girdawari of the land in question for the last 50 years is in the name of Ram Chander and at the same time, it is alleged that actually Ramphal son of Tara Chand and after his death Brahm Parkash, Narain Singh, Chander Parkash and Bala Ram are in possession. It is submitted that once it is alleged that the Girdawari for the last 50 years is in the name of Ram Chander, no presumption can be drawn in favour of Ramphal son of Tara Chand and thereafter in favour of his sons Brahm Parkash, Narain Singh, Chander Parkash and Bala Ram – complainant. It is submitted that once it is alleged that the Girdawari for the last 50 years is in the name of Ram Chander, no presumption can be drawn in favour of Ramphal son of Tara Chand and thereafter in favour of his sons Brahm Parkash, Narain Singh, Chander Parkash and Bala Ram – complainant. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not signatory to the sale deed and one Ravi resident of Joniawas for the vendee and one Manoj son of Mangat Ram signed in the capacity of witness No.1; besides Sheo Narain signed in the capacity of witness No.2. 5. In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that Manoj Kumar who is a witness to the sale deed has not been arrested till date and, therefore, the petitioners are not liable to be granted bail till Manoj Kumar is arrested. Besides, it is submitted that they are likely to tamper with the evidence in case released on bail. It is submitted that the address furnished by Manoj Kumar on the sale deed is also forged. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioners are in custody since 11.10.2009. The case is triable by the Magistrate. The Challan in the case has been filed. The prosecution is to establish its case by leading evidence. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The mere fact that Manoj Kumar is one of the witnesses to the sale deed and has not been arrested is, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground to deny bail to the petitioners. The case is primarily based on documentary evidence, including revenue records. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioners, on their furnishing personal bond and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate, shall be admitted to bail. ----------------------