ORDER : The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 132 of 2022, dated 23.09.2022, under Section 382 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per story of the prosecution, Sh. Ankit Chauhan made a complaint to the police in which it has been alleged that on 23.09.2022, when he was on his way from his residence at Jharmajri to his work place at Eastman Auto Power Ltd. Company, and reached at Buranwala, around 8:40 am, a white Scorpio, bearing registration No. HP12-K-7772, came from Baddi side and the person sitting on the front seat of the vehicle asked for mobile from him, for making a call, as his mobile phone has been switched off. As per the complainant, he got frightened and read the number of the vehicle from the front side. The occupants of the vehicle snatched his mobile phone and the vehicle was driven towards Barotiwala. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case under the apt Sections of IPC and the investigation ensued. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, and in case he is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that at this stage, the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the recovery stands effected and custody of the petitioner is not require, as he has already joined the investigation. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the recovery stands effected and custody of the petitioner is not require, as he has already joined the investigation. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custody is not at all required by the police, as nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petition. 7. At this stage, considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the nature of the offence, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose, and also considering the overall facets of the case and without discussing them elaborately, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in this case, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 132 of 2022, dated 23.09.2022, under Section 382 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court/ Police/ authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner 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 Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. 9. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for adjudication of the present case and the same shall have no bearing on the merit of the case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.