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. 10 of 2022 dated 04.01.2022, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) in Police Station Dhali, District Shimla H.P. 2. Status report stands filed and record has also been produced. 3. Prosecution case is that on 4.1.2022, complainant Rohit Karol, proprietor of Krishan Fruit Agency, approached the police with complaint for lodging FIR against the petitioner stating therein that petitioner had purchased apple crop from his sole proprietorship concern amounting to Rs.4,39,911/-, but, after taking apple crop from the firm, he fled and switched off his mobile phone and was untraceable. According to complaint, petitioner proclaimed himself to be a big trader and induced, cheated and duped the complainant by impersonating himself to be a trader, whereas, he was not trader. 4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint FIR has been lodged and petitioner, who was already in custody, was arrested in present case also on 18.1.2022 and he remained in police custody in FIR No.238/2021, till 20.1.2022 and thereafter, he is in judicial custody. 5. As per status report, complainant had sold apple and other fruits to petitioner during the period i.e. from 6.7.2021 to 4.8.2021 worth Rs.30,89,911.75 out of which petitioner paid Rs.26,50,000/-, but, did not pay Rs.4,39,911.75 Ps. and fled from Shimla. 6. As per investigation, petitioner has caused loss to the complainant by cheating him. It has been stated that specimen signatures and hand writing of petitioner taken before the Magistrate is being sent to State FSL Junga with documents seized by police during interrogation which were prepared and signed by petitioner. It has been stated that co-accused Yusuf is absconding till date and he has to be arrested. 7. On verification from Police Station of petitioner, address of petitioner has been verified by police from Police Station Bhaktinagar, Rajkot City Gujarat with further information that petitioner is residing there along with his wife Afrozaben. It has been further reported from Police Station Bhaktinagar that a case under Section 12(A) of Gujarat Gambling Act has been found registered in the year 2021 against the petitioner. It has been further reported from Police Station Bhaktinagar that a case under Section 12(A) of Gujarat Gambling Act has been found registered in the year 2021 against the petitioner. It has been stated that investigation is to be carried after visiting Gondal Gujarat where petitioner had sold the apples and record is to be obtained from that place after associating purchaser of apples in investigation. It has been stated that against petitioner, three more FIRs No. 238 of 2021, 11 of 2022 and 12 of 2022 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC have also been registered by different complainants in Police Station Dhali, which are pending investigation. It has been stated that petitioner is resident of Gujarat and in case, he is enlarged on bail, it would be difficult to ensure his presence during investigation as well as trial. It is the case of prosecution that in present case petitioner fled from Shimla on 17.8.2021 without making the payment of balance amount of Rs.4,39,911/-, whereas apple season was continuing till October 2021. 8. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that dispute in present case is civil in nature, but FIR has been lodged for using it a tool for recovery of amount which is not permissible under law and at the best, civil suit for recovery could have been instituted for disputed amount from petitioner and according to petitioner, out of Rs.30,89,911/-, petitioner has paid Rs.26,50,000/-, which has not been disclosed by complainant in the complaint, and petitioner has paid a substantial amount to the complainant at the time of procuring the apple boxes and only some amount is left to be paid which was to be paid by partner Yusuf at later stage as agreed by parties. However, in the meanwhile, complainant has lodged FIR and resultantly, petitioner has been arrested. 9. However, in the meanwhile, complainant has lodged FIR and resultantly, petitioner has been arrested. 9. It has been further contended that nothing is to be recovered from petitioner and trial of case is likely to take a considerable long time and petitioner belongs a respectable family having deep roots in the society and is permanent resident of Gujarat and there is no likelihood of his absconding or jumping over his bail and in case, petitioner is enlarged on bail, he undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by Court at the time of enlarging him on bail and is also ready and willing to furnish local surety for ensuring his presence. Further undertaking has been given on behalf of petitioner that he shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not misuse the liberty and shall join the investigation and will be available during trial as and when required without putting any hindrance or obstruction to the smooth progress of investigation as well as trial. 10. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that FIR Nos. 238 of 2021, 11 and 12 of 2022 have also been registered against the petitioner for commission of same offence wherein in FIR No.238 of 2021, petitioner has paid substantial amount out of Rs.51 lakh and balance amount is Rs.15 lakh, and in case FIR No. 11 of 2022, out of Rs.22,26,224/- after making payment of substantial amount, the balance amount is Rs.4,25,244/- and in FIR No. 12 of 2022 out of total amount of Rs.15,68,916/-, the remaining amount is Rs.1,68,914/-. It has been canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner that had the petitioner intention to cheat the complainant, he would not have supplied his correct address, Aadhar and telephone number. 11. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, on 12.1.2022, observing that petitioner was involved in three more cases registered for commission of offence of similar nature, involving huge amount and, therefore, at that stage by no stretch of imagination it could be said that petitioner was totally innocent and, therefore, was not entitle for bail. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that approach adopted by Magistrate is contrary to law of law as rule is bail not jail and for antecedents of petitioner as well as payment of substantial amount by him, he would have been enlarged on bail as other cases, referred in status report, have been lodged after arrest of petitioner in FIR No. 238 of 2021. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner has cheated innocent people in a well planned manner by making the initial payments, but, fleeing from spot, without making huge balance payment, after departure of trucks loaded with apples purchased by petitioner and therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case Cr.MP(M) No. 476 of 2019 titled Pardeep Chauhan vs. State of HP, has canvassed that in case the Court considers to enlarge the petitioner on bail then a condition also be imposed upon him to furnish solvent security equivalent to a sum payable by him to the complainant by giving an undertaking to the satisfaction of trial Court. 14. In response, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on order dated 19.1.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 52 of 2021, titled Dilip Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another wherein it has been observed as under:- “3. Ex facie, the disputes in the instant case are civil in nature. It is the contention of the complainant that despite having paid Rs 41 lakhs to the appellant pursuant to an agreement for purchase of agricultural land, the appellant has not executed the deed of sale in respect of the same. It appears that the complainant has also filed a civil suit for specific performance of the said agreement, which is pending adjudication. 4. By imposing the condition of deposit of Rs. 41 lakhs, the High Court has, in an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, virtually issued directions in the nature of recovery in a civil suit. 5. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. 41 lakhs, the High Court has, in an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, virtually issued directions in the nature of recovery in a civil suit. 5. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. It is open to a Court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial. 6. We accordingly modify the order impugned before us by deleting the direction to deposit Rs 41 lakhs as directed by the High Court. Needless to mention, the grant of anticipatory bail shall be governed by the conditions in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 15. Learned counsel for petitioner has also referred judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013)15 SCC 570 wherein it has been observed that “11. While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty bound to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint.” 16. In view of pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to impose condition of furnishing solvent security with respect to the amount payable by the petitioner in present case. 17. Taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances, but, without commenting on merits thereon and taking into account 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. 18. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties sureties each in the like amount, one of them should be, as undertaken by petitioner, a local surety, to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to any further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for assuring his presence during trial including the following further conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during the investigation as well as trial 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 her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. She shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (iii) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial; (iv) 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; (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 she is suspected; (vi) 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; (vii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of Court; (viii) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. Dasti copy on usual terms.