JUDGMENT: Shri Kant Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complainant of this case is the real nephew of the applicant. In fact the father of the applicant executed a registered will deed in favour of the applicant, therefore, the complainant felt aggrieved and concocted the present case against him. It was next submitted that a civil suit regarding declaration is also pending. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the will deed is forged and someelse has impersonated himself as the father of the applicant while executing the will. The learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offences. The learned AGA opposed the bail, but could not point out anything otherwise. 3. In my opinion, prima facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant have substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Moreso, there does not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe that the applicant will tamper with the witnesses or abscond, if released on bail. Keeping in view the nature of offence and evidence, complicity of the accused, the severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A., I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 4. Let the applicant Kailash Nath involved in case crime no. 724/2010, under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Cantt, District-Varanasi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM concerned.