JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for enlarging the petitioner on bail in case FIR No. 150 of 2018 registered in P.S. Karsog, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 IPC. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, as per FIR dated 10.10.2018, is that petitioner has fabricated Transfer Receipts (in short TRs) indicating the deposit of Rs. 11 lacs on 10.9.2018, Rs. 2 lacs on 12.9.2018 and Rs.3.50 lacs on 15.9.2018, in PNB Karsog on behalf of firm of complainant whereas no such amount was ever deposited by him in the bank. It is further case of prosecution that for fabricating these TRs of Excise Department, he has prepared the seals of bank and put the same on TRs and also forged the signatures of bank officials thereon, before handing over these TRs to salesman of complainant. According to complainant, out of Rs. 16.50 lacs, Rs. 6.5 lacs were handed over by the complainant to the petitioner for depositing on his behalf, whereas two TRs amounting to Rs. 5 lac each dated 10.9.2018 were fabricated by petitioner/accused purporting that he had invested Rs. 10 lac in the business of complainant as a partner. Non-deposit of amount vide aforesaid TRs came in the notice of complainant in the end of month when Excise Department raised the issue of non-deposit of amount and thereafter on verification by complainant from PNB Karsog, it came in the notice that accused/petitioner has forged/fabricated the TRs and has not deposited any amount as purported by him, which resulted into lodging of complaint against the petitioner/accused. 3. It is also case of prosecution that on 8th October, 2018 complainant and petitioner/accused had approached the police station and produced a compromise deed and had made their statements. Nand Lal complainant had told the police that petitioner/accused was engaged by him as a Manager and in the month of September, 2018, Rs. 16.50 lacs was handed over to him for depositing in PNB Karsog on various dates which were not deposited by him, but as the petitioner was admitting his guilt and had agreed to pay the entire amount of Rs.16.50 lacs to complainant on or before 13.10.2018 they had compromised the matter. According to prosecution, accused/petitioner had accepted the said version of complainant Nand Lal. According to prosecution, accused/petitioner had accepted the said version of complainant Nand Lal. In his statement before police with further statement that he had visited Churag on 6.10.2018 and he had returned back to Karsog on 7.10.2018 on his own volition and nobody had confined him and since 7.10.2018 he is working on the liquor vend at Karsog. According to prosecution, thereafter petitioner/accused, in his own vehicle, had left for his home as per his will. 4. Thereafter on 10.10.2018 complainant Nand Lal had lodged an FIR No. 150 of 2018 by submitting a written complaint in P.S. Karsog against the petitioner/accused, whereas petitioner/accused has also lodged FIR No. 151 of 2018 against the complainant alleging therein that he was beaten, confined and pressurized to sign on compromise deed on 6th and 7th October, 2018 and to make statement in Police Station, Karsog on 8th October, 2018. 5. Stand of the petitioner is that he was working as a salesman with complainant and he had to receive amount of salary from complainant and on account of non-payment thereof, he had left the job and went home. However, later on he was called again by complainant on the pretext of making payment to him with further request to continue as his salesman. 6. Perusal of record produced also indicates that on 6th October, 2018 a report bearing GD No. 035 dated 6.10.2018 was recorded in P.S. Karsog on the basis of written complaint filed by complainant wherein it was stated that he had handed over Rs. 1 Lac, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.35,000/- on 11.9.2018, 12.9.2018 and 15.9.2018 to petitioner/accused for depositing in the Bank but he did not deposit the same and had run away from Karsog one hour ago and it was requested to police to take action against him. 7. In FIR No. 150 of 2018, it is the case of complainant that Rs.16.50 lacs were handed over to petitioner/accused to be deposited in the bank on various dates i.e. 10.9.2018, 12.9.2018 and 15.9.2018. 8. 7. In FIR No. 150 of 2018, it is the case of complainant that Rs.16.50 lacs were handed over to petitioner/accused to be deposited in the bank on various dates i.e. 10.9.2018, 12.9.2018 and 15.9.2018. 8. It is also stated in status report that petitioner is not cooperating in investigation and despite calling him number of times, he is appearing before Investigating Officer as per his own convenience, whereas it is the stand of petitioner that as and when he was called and/or served the Hukumnama upon him by Investigating Officer or through the police at P.S. Dehra, he had joined the investigation immediately. According to him, he was at Mandi till 5.11.2018 and thereafter with permission of Investigating Officer he had visited home and thereafter he has received the call on 10.10.2018 whereupon he visited District Mandi on 11.11.2018 where it came to his notice that Investigating Officer was on leave from 4.11.2018 to 11.11.2018 and therefore on the joining of Investigating Officer on 12.11.2018, he appeared before him. 9. I refrain myself from expressing any opinion on the allegation and counter allegations of the case, however, on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, it is certainly a case where custodial interrogation of petitioner is not warranted and no fruitful purpose shall be served by sending the petitioner/accused behind the bars. Therefore, he is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer and also subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court on each and every date as and when required; (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (ii) That he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation; (iii) That the petitioner shall attend the trial Court as and when directed to do so ; (iv) That he shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh without information and shall inform, in writing, regarding any change of address, if any, from the present place of residence, in advance, to Investigating Officer, P.S. Karsog. (v) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is suspected. (vi) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 10. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 11. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 12. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Dasti copy on usual terms.