JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This fourth bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants Ajay Kumar Sharma and Suresh Sharma had filed a criminal complaint before the court of Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 32, Jaipur Matropolitan, Jaipur against the petitioner and one another wherein it had been inter-alia alleged that a Shop no. 18-E- situated a J-Block Iskon Road, Brahman Ki Thadi Opp. Vijay Patha Agarwal Farm Jaipur and Plot no. 116 measuring 72 sq. Yard sitauted Hanuman Vihar Khejado Ka Bas, Tehsil Sanganer Jaipur are in the possession and ownership of the accused petitioner and a Plot No. 114 measuring 258 sq. Yards situated at Hanuman Vihar Khejado Ka Bas is in possession and ownership of accused Kailash Chandra Depan. The accused persons executed a sale agreement on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- for the sale of the aforesaid properties in favour of the complainants on 19.2.2015 for sale consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the accused persons had received Rs. 48,00,000/- from the complainants at the time of execution of sale agreement and agreed that remaining sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- will be given within 2 months of execution of sale deed and they will get sale deed registered in their favour. On 16.4.2015, complainants had requested the accused persons to get sale deed registered in their favour by receiving the remaining sale consideration but they avoided the same and they did not comply the terms and condition of the agreement and therefore complainants sent a legal notice to the accused persons and after receiving the legal notice, accused persons called the complainants at Shop No. 18-E-J Block Brahman Ki Thandi and the complainants along with their known person Gyarsi Lal Yadav went at Shop No. 18-E-J Block where the accused persons threatened the complainants and thereafter on 19.5.2015 accused persons again called the complainants, then the complainants told that they came in the Court premises at Banipark and the accused persons were agreed for the same and the accused persons and complainants came in the court premises where the accused persons started beating the complainants and thus accused persons usurp the said amount of the complainants etc. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint to the Police Station Sadar, Jaipur Under section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR and for further investigation. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint to the Police Station Sadar, Jaipur Under section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR and for further investigation. An FIR No.234/2015 was registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur for the offences mentioned therein, whereupon the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested. He moved the bail application before the court below, which was dismissed on 17/10/2015. Thereafter, he moved an application of bail before this court which came to be dismissed on 26/11/2015 with liberty to file a fresh one before the court below after filing of challan. He moved third bail application before the trial court which was dismissed on 24/5/2016. Against the said order, this fourth bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the matter. He is in judicial lock up since long and conclusion of trial will take time. He further contended that the offence is triable by first class Magistrate and complainant-accused Kailash Chandra Depan has been released on bail and the case of the petitioner is on better footing. Hence he should be released on bail. 4. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same and submitted that the petitioner is a main accused as he has received the money of Rs. 48 lacs and promised to receive Rs. 2 lacs at the time of registry but he did not do so and in spite of registry he has beaten the complainants and threatened not to enforce them for agreement, hence he should not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. 2 lacs at the time of registry but he did not do so and in spite of registry he has beaten the complainants and threatened not to enforce them for agreement, hence he should not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. While dismissing the third bail application of the petitioner on 24/5/2016, the trial court has observed as under: ^i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk mDr bdjkjukek dh ikyuk esa jftLVªh ugha djokbZ gS vkSj /kkjk 406] 420 Hkknla dk vijk/k ekurs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksi fojfpr dj lquk;k x;k gSA t;iqj esa bl izdkj dss izdj.k jkst gks jgs gSaA ,d IykWV dks nks&nks ckj cspk tk jgk gS vkSj U;k;ky; gktk }kjk iwoZ esa izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr tekur izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 439 naizla0 [kkfjt fd, tk pqds gSaaA izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa izLrqr tekur izkFkZuk i= ,l0ch0fdz0eh0 tekur izkFkZuk i= la[;k 13141@15] fnukad 26-11-2015 dks [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk ,oa izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, bl LVst ij izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fVIi.kh fd, fcuk tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA* 7. Looking to the overall facts and circumstance of the case, I do not think it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail as I am in full agreement with the observation made by the court below as quoted herein above. 8. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. 9. However the petitioner shall be free to move the fresh bail application before the court below after recording the statement of material witnesses and it is expected from the court below to decide the same in accordance with law.