ORDER : Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC’), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 323 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur. 2. Status report stands filed wherein it is stated that FIR in present case was registered on the basis of joint complaint dated 13.12.2017, submitted by complainants Ashish Kumar, Nitin Verma, Pooja Devi, Surjit Kumar and Suresh Kumar to the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur alleging therein that petitioner Raj Verma and co-accused Anupama, in criminal conspiracy with each other had cheated the complainants and had extorted money from them by impersonating Raj Verma as Senior CEO in Reserve Bank of India with assurance that on payment of money to accused persons, complainants shall be posted against some good Government posts and further that complainants were made to believe that accused persons shall manage good job for them and thus believing the accused persons that they will help them in interview, providing job on payment of money in lacs to accused persons, the complainants transferred the money to accused persons and thereafter, accused persons had given appointment letters to complainants for appointments in different branches of PNB Bank and Canara Bank etc. But, Branch Managers of those banks had disclosed to the complainants that those appointment letters are fake and fabricated, whereupon, complainants had approached co-accused Anupama and asked her to refund the amount paid by complainants, whereupon, accused Anupama had stated that accused Raj Verma (petitioner) had not met her since long and as and when he would come she would talk with him. It is further case of complainants that they had visited Chandigarh in search of petitioner, who had met them near Sunny Enclave and had assured them to return the money to them at the earliest and he had issued cheques to complainants which were signed by co-accused Anjana. 3. On inquiry from the banks, it was revealed to complainants that there was no sufficient amount in the accounts against which cheques were issued. Thereafter, on approaching again, accused avoided the refund of money on one pretext or other and ultimately, petitioner had threatened to kill the complainants, if they demanded money again. 4. 3. On inquiry from the banks, it was revealed to complainants that there was no sufficient amount in the accounts against which cheques were issued. Thereafter, on approaching again, accused avoided the refund of money on one pretext or other and ultimately, petitioner had threatened to kill the complainants, if they demanded money again. 4. Later on, accused Anupama had helped the petitioner to abscond which compelled the complainants to file the complaint against accused persons. 5. As per status report, petitioner Rakesh Rana, co-accused Anupama and Anjana had been found involved in criminal conspiracy for commission of offfence as alleged by complainants and after registration of FIR, Rakesh Rana could not be traced despite raiding his native village in Kangra at Ludhiana and Chandigarh etc., the known places of his residence and ultimately, when he was arrested by Panchakula police on 4.10.2020, in case FIR No. 143 of 2018, his custody was obtained on 20.11.2020 under the Production Warrant issued by trial Court i.e. JMFC Court No.II, Hamirpur and since then, petitioner, after remaining in police custody for some time, is in judicial custody. 6. As per status report, co-accused Anjana was also arrested on 6.1.2021, and was released on bail by trial Court i.e. JMFC Court No.II, Hamirpur vide order dated 1.2.2021. Whereas, co-accused Anupama Thakur was enlarged on anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur vide order dated 15.12.2017 and thereafter her bail was confirmed on 3.1.2018. 7. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner was always available at his known addresses, but, Investigating Agency did not approach him at any point of time, prior to obtaining his custody through Production Warrant, and to substantiate this plea, it has been pointed out that co-accused Anjana Devi who is permanent resident of village Kuthera, District Kangra and now residing in Panchkula Haryana was also arrested only in January, 2021 i.e. after the arrest of petitioner in October/November, 2020 and even if case of prosecution is admitted to be true that petitioner was hiding himself from Investigating Agency, then also, there was no explanation as to why co-accused Anjana Devi, against whom also, the allegations were leveled in complaint, was not arrested prior to January, 2021. It is further submitted that after registration of present FIR, the Investigating Agency never bothered to contact the petitioner or Anjana Devi for joining them in investigation and suddenly after three years of lodging the FIR, the Investigating Agency came in action and arrested the petitioner and Anjana Devi, and in order to justify their laxity and delay for investigating the matter, the record has been manipulated depicting that petitioner was not available, on his known addresses whereas, all efforts reflected in record allegedly made for searching the petitioner, were made in papers only. It has further been submitted that the falsity of record in this regard is substantiated from the fact that similar situated co-accused Anjana Devi, was also not arrested or associated in investigation till January, 2021 i.e. even after arrest of petitioner. 8. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that one co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail, whereas, another has been enlarged on bail, within less than one month of her arrest, however, petitioner is languishing in jail since November, 2020. 9. It has further been submitted that petitioner is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh and ready to abide by any condition imposed by Court for enlarging him on bail including furnishing local surety/sureties. 10. The learned counsel has also submitted that as a matter of fact, even if the story of complainants is admitted to be true, then complainants are also liable to be prosecuted along with petitioner and other accused persons for adopting unlawful and illegal means to secure job in Government departments, but, Investigating Agency at the instance of complainants, had prosecuted petitioner and other accused only, for harassing them. Lastly, it is stated that commission of offence is yet to be proved by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubts and for enlargement of co-accused on bail, petitioner, having been found similarly situated with other co-accused, should not be kept behind the bars ignoring his right to be considered innocent and also right to personal liberty provided under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 11. 11. In the status report, it has also been stated that petitioner is also an accused of similar offences in the State of Haryana and Punjab and he has been ordered to be kept in judicial custody in FIR No. 143 of 2018 registered in Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, District Panchkula in State of Haryana and FIR No. 125 of 2019 registered in Police Station Division No.2, Jallandhar in Punjab. 12. It is stated on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has already given details of aforesaid FIRs in his present petition in para 6. 13. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that petitioner had cheated innocent people of Himachal Pradesh and thereafter, he was not traceable for a period of about three years and trial is in progress and in case, he is enlarged on bail, it would be difficult to ensure his presence during trial and further that petitioner is in judicial custody in two other similar FIRs registered in States of Punjab and Haryana and therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, whereas, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that for the nature of offence committed, role of complainants and purpose for which complainants had allegedly offered money, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail particularly keeping in view the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused and period of about one year of detention of accused. 14. 14. Taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances and also factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme Court and this Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case at this stage but subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to any further condition to be imposed by trial Court for assuring his presence during trial including the following further conditions:- (i) That before enlarging the petitioner on bail, it shall be ensured that his custody is not required in any other case including FIR No. 143 of 2018 registered at Police Station Sector 29, Panchkula, District Panchkula in the State of Haryana and FIR No. 125 of 2019 registered at Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar, Punjab. (ii) That the petitioner shall make himself available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required; (iii) 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 her 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; (iv) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial; (v) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police Station; (vi) 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; (vii) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution/police; (viii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of Court; (ix) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 15. 15. 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 be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 16. 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. 17. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013. 18. 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 bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 19. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. Petition stands disposed of.