HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 5th April, 2011 1st Bail Application No. 239 of 2011 Order on the bail application of the accused. Tarsem Singh and another ……. Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Opposite Party In Case Crime / F.I.R. No. 2851 of 2006 U/S 420, 467, 468, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Bazpur District Udham Singh Nagar Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, the learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Pratiroop Pandey, the learned counsel for the complainant and Shri S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. for the State. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that it is basically a civil dispute. Allegation is that by committing forgery, the applicants had got the land mutated in their names and in order to safeguard themselves, the applicants had also filed an application u/S 34 of the Land Revenue Act which is pending consideration since the year 2006. On the other hand, the Court finds that some sorts of a compromise was arrived at between the parties which was violated and, accordingly, the opposite parties have filed a suit in 2006 for the cancellation of the said compromise which is pending consideration. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the opposite parties filed an application u/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged and the applicants were arrested and their bail was rejected. Considering the aforesaid facts, coupled with the fact that the dispute with regard to the forgery being made is subject to the evidence being led, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage. Let the applicants Tarsem Singh and Nishan Singh be enlarged on bail in Case Crime / F.I.R. No. 2851 of 2006, U/S 420, 467, 468, 504 and 506 I.P.C., on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 05.04.2011 Shiv