ORDER : The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 250 of 2019, dated 31.8.2019, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 31.08.2019 police received a complaint, wherein the complainant alleged that for the last many years, he is acquainted with one Chander Shekhar (petitioner herein). During the month of January, 2018, petitioner allured him that his son and daughter would be provided good jobs. Petitioner Chander Shekhar also told that he knows one Rohit @ Rinku, who works in Parliament and after three months of receipt of money jobs will be given. The petitioner taking advantage of gullibility of the complainant, extracted Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lac only) from him. However, the petitioner neither provided jobs to the children of the complainant, nor he returned the money. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case under the apt Sections of IPC and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, police procured Bank records of petitioner Chander Shekhar and Gagan Deep and ultimately on 01.09.2019 arrested the petitioner. Police also recovered fake appointment letters, joining letters, notices etc. and the same were sent to analysis to SFSL, Junga. On 24.10.2019 challan was presented in the learned trial Court, on 01.10.2020 supplementary challan was presented and second supplementary challan was presented on 25.9.2021 and now the examination of the prosecution witnesses has commenced. Lastly, it is prayed that the petitioner was actively involved in a series of offence, he cheated the innocent people and usurped their hard earned money, so, in case, at this stage, if he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and petition may be dismissed. 4. Lastly, it is prayed that the petitioner was actively involved in a series of offence, he cheated the innocent people and usurped their hard earned money, so, in case, at this stage, if he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and petition may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, as challan stands presented before the learned trial Court, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose, as the investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered either from the petitioner or at his instance. It has been argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as the trial is in its crucial stage, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus he is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered either from the petitioner or at his instance and even challan stands presented in the learned trial Court, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose. It has been argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant petition. 8. It has been argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant petition. 8. At this stage considering the fact that the petitioner was in constant touch with main kingpin, i.e. accused Rohit Kastha and the petitioner played a key role in cheating the innocent and gullible people on the pretext of providing jobs either to them or to their children. Considering the facts that it has come in the police report that it was the petitioner who, through different ways, got transferred crores of rupees in the bank accounts of accused Rohit Kastha, Subhash Kastha, Sonu Thakur (wife of Subhash Kastha) and Sanjay (servant of Rohit Kastha), the amount involved in the offence, i.e., Rs.2,86,48,000/- (rupees two crore eighty six lac fourty eight thousand only), considering the bank transactions, fake documents, viz. appointment letters, joining letters, notices etc. and the scale at the accused persons were operating in cheating the innocent people, the manner in which the accused persons, including the petitioner, used to operate and the fact that it has come in the police investigation that the petitioner and accused persons cheated 98 persons for an amount of Rs.2,86,48,000/-. At this stage also considering the facts that the trial is in its crucial stage and in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Considering the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime, the way and the manner in which the alleged crime was committed, scale of the crime and also considering all the facets of the case, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 9. The petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Before parting it would be apt to note that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for the decision of the instant petition and the same shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on the mertis of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.