JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Lekh Raj Bhakhary @ Vikrant Sharma, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 185 dated 19.09.2012 at Police Station Bawa Khel, Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar, for an offence punishable under sections 406,420 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the contents of the FIR and has submitted that the only role attributed to the petitioner is of helping Sadhna Sharma in escaping from the place she was living at. According to him, the case is against Sadhna Sharma of cheating a number of persons in a sum of about rupees four crores. He has further submitted that the allegation against him is hearsay allegation for which there is no proof. According to him, the petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2012 and he is entitled to bail. 3. Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that it has come in evidence that the petitioner was conniving with Sadhna Sharma. According to him, car of Sadhna Sharma and four passports of the complainants have been recovered from the petitioner. According to him, no other person has been arrested in this case so far. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that the petitioner had been receiving money alongwith Sadhna Sharma. According to him, Sadhna Sharma agreed to sell her house to the petitioner and the petitioner is residing in the same. According to him, if the petitioner is allowed bail, he will tamper with the evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid submissions, has submitted that vide Annexure P-3 the petitioner purchased the car of Sadhna Sharma. According to him, the recovery of four passports of the complainants is planted upon the petitioner to make out a case against him. According to him, there is nothing in the FIR showing that the petitioner had ever accompanied Sadhna Sharma in receiving money from the complainants. 6. It is true that the FIR is silent about the petitioner as having ever been with Sadhna Sharma while she received money from the complainants. The car of Sadhna Sharma has been purchased by the petitioner vide document Annexure P-3(colly). 6. It is true that the FIR is silent about the petitioner as having ever been with Sadhna Sharma while she received money from the complainants. The car of Sadhna Sharma has been purchased by the petitioner vide document Annexure P-3(colly). The fact that the petitioner purchased a car from Sadhna Sharma would hardly be sufficient to raise inference that he was working with Sadhna Sharma in cheating the complainants. The fact that no other person has been arrested in this case, would not go against the petitioner and the complainants are about 40 in number in this case and it cannot be believed that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence of those persons. 7. In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. ---------0.B.S.0------------