JUDGMENT : - P.S.Rana, J. Present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No. 114 of 2013 dated 21.8.2013 registered under Sections 420 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gagret, District Una Himachal Pradesh. 2. It is pleaded that false FIR has been registered against the applicants. It is further pleaded that investigation is complete and challan has already been presented in the Court. It is further pleaded that applicants are extending all cooperation to the trial. It is further pleaded that nothing is to be recovered from the applicants and the applicants undertake to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and prayer for acceptance of bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. There is recital in police report that FIR No. 114 of 2013 dated 21.8.2013 has been registered against the applicants under Sections 420 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Gagret, District Una HP. There is further recital in police report that complainant Smt. Seema Kumari wife of Ravinder Singh resident of village Mawakola Tehsil Amb District Una on dated 17.8.2013 went to Punjab National Bank Daulatpur for withdrawal of amount through her ATM card No. 5126520176019110. There is further recital in police report that her ATM card was not working properly in the ATM machine. There is further recital in police report that one person was present in the ATM room and he told her that he would operate the ATM card and thereafter complainant had given her ATM card to him. There is further recital in police report that thereafter complainant withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) out of the deposited amount and remaining amount was to the tune of Rs.1,71,000/- (One lac seventy one thousand). There is further recital in police report that on dated 19.8.2013 at about 5.59 AM she received a telephonic message regarding withdrawal of amount to the tune of Rs.5,020/- (Five thousand twenty). There is further recital in police report that thereafter complainant Smt Seema Devi contacted through the helpline of Punjab National Bank and told to the Bank to close her bank account. There is further recital in police report that thereafter the complainant was informed that her ATM card was got exchanged. There is further recital in police report that thereafter complainant Smt Seema Devi contacted through the helpline of Punjab National Bank and told to the Bank to close her bank account. There is further recital in police report that thereafter the complainant was informed that her ATM card was got exchanged. There is further recital in police report that an amount of Rs. 65,000/- (Sixty five thousand) was withdrawn from her account. There is further recital in police report that a case was registered against the applicants. There is further recital in police report that matter was investigated and site plan was prepared. There is further recital in police report that accused persons have exchanged the ATM card of the complainant and withdrawn an amount of Rs.65,000/- (Sixty five thousand). The accused persons were arrested on dated 27.5.2014 and challan was presented against the accused persons in Court on dated 8.7.2014. There is further recital in police report that accused persons are residents of Haryana and they would threat the prosecution witness and would obstruct the trial of the present case. Prayer for rejection of bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants and Court also heard learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in present case cannot be decided at this stage till criminal case is not disposed of finally by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 6. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants that no investigation is to be required in present case and challan has already been filed in the competent criminal court of law against the applicants and case will be disposed of in due course of time and in view of the above stated facts applicants be released on bail is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri.L.J 702 titled Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial and it was held that object of bail is not punitive in nature. It was held that bail is rule and committal to jail is exception. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Court is of the opinion that investigation has been completed in the present case and trial will be concluded in due course of time and it is not expedient in the ends of justice to keep the applicants in jail till the conclusion of trial. Court is of the opinion that if the applicants are released on bail at this stage then interests of the general public or the State will not be adversely effected. 7. Submission of learned Addl. Advocate General that applicants are residents of Haryana and they will obstruct the trial of the present case if they released on bail is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditional bail will be granted to the applicants and condition will be imposed in the bail order that applicants will not threat the prosecution witness and will not obstruct the trial of the present case in any manner. If applicants will flout terms and condition of bail order then non-applicant will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 8. If applicants will flout terms and condition of bail order then non-applicant will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above stated facts the bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 Cr.PC is allowed and applicants will be released on bail on following terms and conditions on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court each. (i) That applicants will join investigation of the present case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) That applicants will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iv) That applicants will not obstruct the proceedings of the learned trial Court and will attend proceedings of learned trial Court regularly. (v) That applicants will not commit similar offence qua which they are accused. (vi) That applicants will give their residential address to the Investigating Officer in written manner. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not effect merits of the present case in any manner. Bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is disposed of. Pending application if any also disposed of.