IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 18th day of March, 2010 Urgency Application No. 1002/2010 Ist Bail Application No. 230 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Intzar Ahmad .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 592/2007, U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, PS Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar. _______________________________________________________________ March 18, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. KS Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the complainant. Reasons stated in the urgency application are satisfactory. Hence, urgency application is allowed. Heard on the bail application of the accused applicant. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that on 7.2.2007, the accused applicant entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the disputed property in his favour against the sale consideration of Rs. 23,50,000/- with one Mr. Umar Daraj and paid Rs. 5,87,000/- in advance as a token amount to him for the same. He further submitted that the accused applicant thereafter on 9.7.2007 executed an agreement to sell in respect of the disputed property in favour of the complainant Smt. Lata Devi against the sale consideration of Rs. 23,50,000/- after taking Rs. 5,87,000/- in advance as a token amount from her. But subsequently Umar Daraj did not execute the sale deed of the disputed property in favour of the accused applicant and hence, the applicant could not execute the sale deed of that property in favour of the complainant. He further submitted that the applicant when could not get the sale deed executed in his favour, lodged an FIR against Umar Daraj with PS Jwalapur, Haridwar. He further submitted that both agreement to sell executed on 7.2.2007 in favour of the applicant and agreement to sell executed on 9.7.2007 in favour of the complainant are unregistered documents and the same are not admissible in evidence as per law and even no civil suit is maintainable on the basis of these agreements. He lastly submitted that the applicant has got no previous criminal history, who is in jail since the last two months. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of both the FIRs and other papers available on record; in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Intzar Ahmad be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. Bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.3.2010 PRABODH 2