JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. Applicant-Israr Khan, who is in jail in connection with Crime No. 131 of 2016, relating to offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C read with 120B registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the grounds taken up in the bail application and perused the documents on record. 3. As per prosecution, complainant Maqbool Ahmed moved an application to I.G Police/S.I.T Dehradun, on the basis of which a report was lodged with R.O.P Jhajhra, P.S Prem Nagar, Dehradun, on 15.08.2016, mentioning therein that he along with his family is the resident of Saharanpur, U.P. The present applicant, who is also resident of Saharanpur and acquainted with the complainant and his family, approached the complainant and told that co-accused Pyare Lal @ Pyara had executed an agreement to sell in favour of present accused of the land bearing Khata Khatauni No. 519, Khasra No. 718 kha, area 0.8050 Hect. situated at Mauja Sudhowala, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, Dehradun on 08.09.2015. The present applicant also told the complainant that he has got the right to sell the aforesaid land. Applicant showed the latest Khatauni and assured them that the land is free from all encumbrances, upon which the complainant and his family agreed to purchase the land. Accused took a sum of Rs. 26,45,000/- from the wife of complainant and the execution of sale deed was fixed after six months. During this period, the present accused also introduced other persons to the complainant and his family and told that all of them are doing property dealer business in village Sudhowala, Dehradun. Thereafter, the present accused and other co-accused under the conspiracy, executed two forged sale deeds in favour of the wife of complainant and daughter-in-law of the complainant on 19.10.2015 in the office of Sub Registrar, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun and an agreement to sell was, also executed in favour of the complainant. In this chain of transaction, the present accused got executed a sale deed of the house of the complainant in favour of Smt. Tasleem Jahan w/o one Aftab Khan of Saharanpur fraudulently. Further, on 04.11.2015 the accused and co-accused persons got a sale deed executed in favour of Basharat Ali of the balance land i.e. 87.60 sq. In this chain of transaction, the present accused got executed a sale deed of the house of the complainant in favour of Smt. Tasleem Jahan w/o one Aftab Khan of Saharanpur fraudulently. Further, on 04.11.2015 the accused and co-accused persons got a sale deed executed in favour of Basharat Ali of the balance land i.e. 87.60 sq. meters situated at Mauja Sudhowala, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in which present accused stood as witness. When the complainant and his family members inquired about the physical situation and other aspect of the aforesaid land, it came to know that there was no land in the name of the accused and the accused persons grabbed the money of the complainant, including registration charges etc. amounting to Rs. 30,43,000/-. Hence the report was lodged accordingly against present accused-applicant and co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he is innocent, and neither any sale deed was executed by him nor any inducement was made by him. Present applicant paid Rs. 4.50 lacs to co-accused Pyare Lal and got a registered agreement executed in favour of the accused, the alleged sale deed was executed by Pyare Lal in favour of the wife of complainant and daughter-in-law. The sale consideration was received by co-accused Pyare Lal and the present applicant was also cheated by co-accused Pyare Lal. It was also submitted that the offence is triable by Magistrate, applicant is not the beneficiary, and is in jail since 24.11.2016.. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the money was taken by one Pyare Lal, the seller of the land and when Pyare Lal was not traceable, the reporter/complainant lodged an F.I.R against the present applicant, who was nothing but an agent of Pyare Lal. Learned Brief Holder pointed out that two more criminal cases of similar nature are pending against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that these criminal cases were fastened against the present applicant after the present F.I.R is lodged. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail inter alia on the grounds that the applicant will flee away from justice, if he is granted bail. Learned counsel for the applicant replied that the applicant is ready to furnish reliable sureties, if he is granted bail. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail inter alia on the grounds that the applicant will flee away from justice, if he is granted bail. Learned counsel for the applicant replied that the applicant is ready to furnish reliable sureties, if he is granted bail. 7. Considering the overall conspectus of things, as also the grounds taken up in the bail application, a case of bail is made out in favour of the applicant. 8. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. 9. If at any point of time, it is found that the applicant is misusing the bail, the learned Court below shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law. 10. Urgency Application No. 1114 of 2017 stands disposed of.