CRM No. 55775 of 2011 in/and CRM-M No. 21964 OF 2011 Vinod Jain v. State of Haryana Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore , Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Man Mohan Sikka,DAG, Haryana. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the complainant. ****** CRM No. 55775 of 2011 CRM allowed. Annexures P-11 and P-12 taken on record. CRM-M No. 21964 OF 2011 This is a petition for regular bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 440 dated 01.12.2010, under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart from the very legality of the prosecution in the face of the arbitration clause, the admitted facts are that the son of the petitioner is the accused person and the petitioner has now been in custody for seven months. Learned counsel has further argued that present is a case of Magisterial trial and, therefore, he should be allowed the concession of bail. Apart from that learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has one house in Pipli which he is ready to place under charge for whatever amount may be found due from him ultimately and there is no asset in the name of his son. Learned DAG, on instructions from ASI Sunil Dutt, and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant have accepted the factual assertions except in respect of the property which may be owned by CRM No. 55775 of 2011 in/and CRM-M No. 21964 OF 2011 -2- the petitioner. In the circumstances, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to grant the petitioner the concession of conditional bail to the extent that he will undertake to create a charge of what is represented to be his only property. It is made clear that in case the prosecution or the complainant is able to establish that the petitioner owns any other property it would be open to them to move for cancellation of bail. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 21, 2011 sunita