Order 1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Taking into consideration the fact that the main accused has already been granted bail and the appellant who was granted interim protection by this Court on 17-12-2013 has not misused the order, we allow the prayer and direct that in the event of arrest the appellant Gauri Shankar Poddar, s/o late Shri Devi Dutt Poddar be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No. 393 of 2012 dated 2-6-2012 registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana subject to furnishing bail bonds for the sum of Rs 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigation officer. However, the appellant be released on bail on the following conditions: (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; 3. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations/directions. 4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 393 dated 2-6-2012 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat (Annexure P-1). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The petitioner had never met the complainant during negotiations or at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question. The agreement to sell was not signed by the petitioner. The complainant has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The complainant is in possession of the property in question and is running its factory in the said premises. Prahlad Poddar, who had executed the agreement to sell in question, had been arrested and had been ordered to be released on regular bail. The co-accused, who was similarly situated as the petitioner, had been cited as a prosecution witness. 6. The learned State counsel, who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner and the other Directors had passed resolution on 17-3-2011 authorising Prahlad Poddar to sell or dispose of the whole or any part of the property of the company. 6. The learned State counsel, who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner and the other Directors had passed resolution on 17-3-2011 authorising Prahlad Poddar to sell or dispose of the whole or any part of the property of the company. The property in question was attached on 2-2-2011 by the Sales Tax Department. However, the agreement to sell was executed on 30-3-2011. The petitioner is none other than the real brother of Prahlad Poddar. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. 7. The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the year 2010, the complainant company had planned to expand its manufacturing capacity. In this regard, the company agreed to purchase the property in question from Shree Shree Radha Swamy Plastics Ltd. The agreement to sell in question was executed on 30-3-2011. In this regard, in all, Rs 4,45,00,000 were paid towards earnest money. However, later on it transpired that the property already stood attached by the Sales Tax Department. Thus, the complainant company had been cheated/defrauded by the accused. 8. In the present case, allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The resolution was passed by the Directors of Shree Shree Radha Swamy Plastics Ltd. on 17-3-2011 authorising Prahlad Poddar to sell or dispose of the whole or part of the company's undertakings in question. The said resolution was also signed by the petitioner. 9. The complainant company paid a huge amount of money in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 30-3-2011 to the accused. The property in question already stood attached by the Sales Tax Department. As per the FIR, the fact that the property in question already stood attached was not disclosed to the complainant company. Although, the complainant company is in possession of the suit property and has resorted to its civil remedy but keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.