JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 2. Submission of the counsel is that the applicant had filed a case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against cousin brother of the complainant. Further submission is that actually the complainant and his cousin brother are very close to each other and were part and parcel of the transactions which resulted in the dishonour of the cheque. It is in that background that relationship of applicant worsened with the complainant thereafter in order to exert coercive pressure not to pursue the complaint filed on behalf of the applicant against his brother that in collusion with his brother, the present false and frivolous case has been filed. It was also submitted that actually a dispute is more of accounting and deliberately a complexion of a criminal case has been lent out. to it. It is also pointed out that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.3.2015. 3. Further submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the offences levelled against the applicant are triable by the court of Magistrate. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. 5. Let the applicant-Munendra @ Moni, involved in Criminal Complaint Case No.4812 of 2010, u/s 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC., P.S.-Murad Nagar, District-Ghaziabad be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 6. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.