JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioner has prayed for bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.421 dated 26.7.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, District Rohtak. 2. The FIR is registered by the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank in which he has averred that the petitioner had opened his account No.016801522426 on 12.7.2010 and got a cheque book as well as card. On 26.7.2010, he came with one Pawan to deposit a cheque bearing No.701263 amounting to Rs.25 lacs drawn in the name of ICICI Bank Dehradun Branch by party namely Rural Organization for Social Employment Emp.-1 which was transferred in the account of the petitioner. After sometime the petitioner issued two cheques bearing No.020589 & 020590 amounting to Rs.10 lacs and Rs.15 lacs respectively. It is alleged that the complainant became anxious as to why the amount is being withdrawn. At that time two more companions of the petitioner came to the Bank. On suspicion, the complainant allegedly asked the Dehradun Party about the cheque and came to know that the said cheque was not issued by it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR was registered on 26.7.2010, the challan was presented on 20.8.2010, charges were framed on 4.3.2011 and the prosecution evidence had started on 31.3.2011 whereas the petitioner is in custody for the last 14 months. He submits that he had applied for bail under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) which was dismissed by JMIC, Rohtak on 7.6.2011 and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 11.7.2011. He further submits that the petitioner deserves concession of bail in terms of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. as the offence is being tried by the Magistrate because despite the expiry of 60 days from the first date of evidence and without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner the evidence is not concluded. He has relied upon two decisions of this Court in the cases of “Smt. Kamlesh Vs. State of Haryana” 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 974 and “Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 291. 4. He has relied upon two decisions of this Court in the cases of “Smt. Kamlesh Vs. State of Haryana” 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 974 and “Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 291. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is being tried though before the Magistrate but offence under Section 467 IPC attracts punishment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. He has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. N.C.T., Delhi” 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record from which I have found that decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati (Supra) is not applicable as in that case the accused was facing trial under Section 302 IPC and the decisions in the cases of Smt. Kamlesh (Supra) and Sukhdev Singh (Supra) are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Moreover, looking into the allegations containing in the FIR and the period of custody, the petitioner otherwise deserves the concession of bail. Hence, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. --------------------