JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Naveen Porwal is in judicial custody in FIR No.46 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC, Police Station Rishikesh, District-Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant appeared through video conferencing. 3. According to the FIR, the applicant was indulged in unlawful activities and criminal conspiracies and misappropriated huge amount of Kailashanand Mission Trust ('the Trust'). The FIR is quite in detail. It records that, in fact, the Trust was established in the year 1971. One Rangi Lal was appointed as the Assistant Manager. There were other appointments as well. The applicant was not concerned with the Trust, but he misappropriated huge amounts. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the informant had no relation with the Trust; Swami Ji, who established the Trust had expelled the informant from the activities of the Trust in the year 1989, itself; the informant had already filed 2 civil suits under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in which, the applicant is a party. It is also submitted that Swami ji had issued a power of attorney in the year 2005 in favour of the applicant; he was also dealing with the Trust property; the applicant has not misappropriated single money; merely, based on a forensic report, chargesheet has been submitted; the applicant did not commit any forgery or any misappropriation of money. 5. On behalf of the informant, it is argued that, in fact, the applicant has misappropriated huge amount of money during Swami Ji's life time by using his credit cards; had taken a lot of overdrafts; committed forgery; accumulated huge properties in various cities at prime locations. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that, in fact, the applicant, while committing forgery, misappropriated huge amount, which has been confirmed by the forensic report. 7. On the question of accumulation of properties, on behalf of the applicant, a statement is given that the applicant is not owner of any house or property except one property, which is about 80 sq. yards, situated at Shyampur, Rishikesh. The Court takes on record this statement. 8. Today, it is told that the Trust is under the management of a receiver appointed by the Court. yards, situated at Shyampur, Rishikesh. The Court takes on record this statement. 8. Today, it is told that the Trust is under the management of a receiver appointed by the Court. The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to whether the forensic report has proved that the applicant forged any document? The answer is that the applicant is the beneficiary of the forgery. 9. Admittedly, there is a lot of dispute between the applicant and the informant and others with regard to the management of the Trust. The applicant has given a statement that he did not operate the bank accounts. Although, the account was opened in his name also. But, he would submit that he did not sign even a single cheque. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.