ORDER : The petitioner has filed the petition seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest pursuant to the proceedings initiated in Crime No.09/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 478 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.2 and her husband who is accused No.1 are stated to have been obtained loan to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/from the complainant and being unable to discharge the same, the accused had offered to sell a site at Mysuru, which would be the lieu of repayment. It is stated that accused No.1 showed a plot to the complainant and received Rs.7,50,000/- towards stamp duty and registration charges. However, sale transaction did not fructify. It is stated that subsequently, another plot at Sathagalli belonging to one Girijamma was offered to be sold to the complainant and the sale deed was executed. It is stated that later, it was discovered that the sale deed was executed by impersonation of the true owner. It is further stated that the petitioner is real estate agent and is also involved in the commission of offence. Accordingly, complaint was lodged, FIR is registered, and investigation is in progress. 3. It is to be noted that other accused apart from the petitioner are enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the order dated 08.02.2019. The motive, if any, is attributed to accused Nos.1 to 3, as regards the role of accused No.4, being involved in commission of the offence is a matter to be proved during the trial. 4. Taking note of the fact that the other accused are enlarged on anticipatory bail and even the prosecution story is to be proved, the case of the prosecution is that accused No.4 is alleged to have committed the act on behest of the other accused. As the other accused are enlarged on anticipatory bail, the petitioner against whom similar allegations are made is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The role of the petitioner is also a matter that would come out during the trial. It is also noticed that relevant documents which are alleged to be concocted documents are already in the custody of Investigating Authority. 5. The role of the petitioner is also a matter that would come out during the trial. It is also noticed that relevant documents which are alleged to be concocted documents are already in the custody of Investigating Authority. 5. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.09/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear in person before the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No.09/2019, within 15 days from the date of release of the order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way, any witness. (iii) The petitioner shall physically present himself and mark his attendance before the concerned Station House Officer once in week between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the final report. (iv) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature. (v) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO. (vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail. Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.