Kalra and executed GPA in favour of the applicant, which was witnessed by Renu Kalra. On 16.10.2015, applicant executed registered sale deed in favour of Santosh Lamba in respect of Shop No. 6 and on 09.10.2015 in respect of Shop No.4. It was later discovered that the applicant had sold Shop No. 4 to Niharika Jain and Harsh Gupta and Shop No. 6 to Vijender Ahuja, Rajesh Ahuja, Shiv Arora and thereafter to Meenakshi Dabla. Each of the victims have supported the prosecution case in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C., office of Sub-Registrar has confirmed the sale transactions. During the course of arguments, learned APP has handed over an undertaking signed by the applicant and Renu Kalra, admitting the sale of properties in favour of Niharika Jain and Harsh Gupta as well as Vijender Ahuja, Rajesh Ahuja, Shiv Arora and undertook to cancel/revoke the sale documents. Applicant has taken a defence that the exchange of money between the applicant and the complainant was not a sale consideration but was on account of loan transactions between them and substantial part of the borrowed money has been returned. This is a matter of trial and no view can be or ought to be taken at this stage. It is true that at the stage of considering bail application, the Court should not enter into appreciation of evidence but it is equally true that the Court can examine if prima facie there is any material to support the charge. Investigation so far, prima facie shows that there is incriminating material against the applicant as number of victims, who claim to be bona fide purchasers of the shops in question, have supported the prosecution case with documentary evidence. The purported sale documents on record, found to be registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, the cheques in question, the alleged undertaking given by the applicant and Renu Kalra, at this stage,
