JUDGMENT

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that on 01.09.2022, Shri Sumit Nath Attorney/Legal Representative of Baptist Missionary Society Corporation, India (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the BMSC') made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani alleging therein that one Satish George and his accomplices in connivance with government officials had hatched a criminal conspiracy to dispose of properties owned by the BMSC including a plot measuring 20 kanals 11 marlas situated at Hansi Gate, Bhiwani on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, in favour of Jaljeet Malik (petitioner) and Rajesh Kumar.

3. Pursuant to receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the matter was inquired into by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani and the allegations, as levelled by the complainant, were prima facie found to be correct and accordingly the FIR in question i.e. FIR No.364 dated 07.10.2022, Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani came to be lodged against more than 9 accused namely Satish George, Jaljeet Malik, Rajesh, Liyakat Khan, Rohit Phogat, Sajjan Verma, Deed Writer, Ombir Lambardar, Vikas Registry Clerk and Ravinder Malik Tehsildar and others.

4. During the course of investigation, resolution dated 17.03.2022 as well as letter dated 17.03.2022 and also letter dated 01.10.2022 vide which Satish George was appointed as President of the BMSC were got verified and it was found that the address of the parties as well as the official address of the Society were false and that all these documents were forged and fabricated documents. It was on the basis of the said forged and fabricated documents that a sale deed in respect of the property in question was purportedly executed and was said to be got registered in a fraudulent manner. It is further the case of prosecution that although the property is worth more than Rs.50 crores, but was sought to be sold for Rs. 1,72,01,625/-. It was further found that while as per the said sale deed dated 05.09.2022, an amount of Rs.1,72,01,625/- was paid to the Society, but as per the complainant, not even a single penny had been credited into the account of the Society and nor any other document was found indicating payment of such amount.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that there is no credible evidence to suggest that the petitioner had committed any forgery or fabrication and that in order to prove his bonafides, he is willing to handover the original sale-deed dated 05.09.2022 to the Investigating Officer, who is present in person in the Court today.

6. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the petitioner is the main accused in whose favour the sale deed had been prepared, his complicity is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 6 months and that he is not involved in any other case. It has also been informed that though challan already stands presented, but charges are yet to be framed and as many as 52 PWs have been cited.

7. This Court has considered rival submissions.

8. It is no doubt correct that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and there are specific allegations against him. However, the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of about 6 months. The trial has not even commenced inasmuch as charges are yet to be framed. Conclusion of trial, in case the charges are framed, is likely to take time inasmuch