JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. Present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 202 of 2013 dated 21.10.2013 registered under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Shimla. 2. It is pleaded that during the pendency of the investigation the disputes between complainant Maheswar Dutt Sharma and applicant have been amicably settled down and a compromise has been executed inter se the complainant and applicant. It is further pleaded that offences punishable under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC are compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr PC with prior permission of the Court. It is further pleaded that applicant will abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. There is recital in police report that FIR No. 202 of 2013 dated 21.10.2013 has been registered against the applicant under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Shimla District Shimla HP. There is further recital in police report that applicant joined the investigation of the case after the grant of interim anticipatory bail by the Court. There is further recital in police report that cheque book, pass book and ATM card are still to be recovered from the applicant. There is further recital in police report that if anticipatory bail application is allowed then applicant will threat the prosecution witness. There is further recital in police report that applicant is residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and Court also heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant. 5. Following points arise for determination in the present anticipatory bail application. (1) Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application. (2) Final Order. Finding upon Point No.1. 6. 5. Following points arise for determination in the present anticipatory bail application. (1) Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application. (2) Final Order. Finding upon Point No.1. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant will join investigation of the case as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and any condition imposed by the Court will be binding upon the applicant and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed 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 also held that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that it is not in the interest of justice that accused should be kept in jail for indefinite period. It is well settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by the competent Court of law. In the present case as per police report that cheque book, pass book and ATM card are to be recovered from the applicant. It is well settled law that anticipatory bail application should not be declined only on the ground that some recovery is to be effected from the accused persons. In the present case as per police report that cheque book, pass book and ATM card are to be recovered from the applicant. It is well settled law that anticipatory bail application should not be declined only on the ground that some recovery is to be effected from the accused persons. Court is of the opinion that if anticipatory bail application is granted to the applicant at this stage then investigation of the case and the interest of general public will not be adversely effected. 7. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-applicant that if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witness and on this ground anticipatory bail application be rejected is devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditions will be imposed in the bail order that applicant will not induce and threat the prosecution witness in any manner. If the applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witness then prosecution will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 8. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-applicant that cheque book, pass book and ATM card are still to be recovered from the applicant and on this ground anticipatory bail application be rejected is devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that bail could not be declined on the ground that some recovery is to be effected from the applicant. See. 1982 SLJ (HP) 415 titled Miss Nirmal Walia and another Vs State It is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant. Hence point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Final Order 9. In view of the finding in point No.1 anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is allowed in the ends of justice. In the event of arrest, the applicant will be released on bail on following terms and conditions on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. (i) That applicant will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (i) That applicant will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That applicant 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 applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iv) That applicant will not commit similar offence qua which he is accused. (v) That applicant will give his residential address to the Investigating Officer in written manner.(vi) That applicant will hand over cheque book, pass book and ATM card to the Investigating Officer forthwith. (vii) That applicant will attend proceedings of learned trial Court regularly. Application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 disposed of. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.