ORDER : 1. The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 5/2022, dated 23.1.2022, under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are permanent residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending them behind the bars, so they be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 23.1.2022, Smt. Indira Verma (complainant) Wife of Shri Rajesh Verma, resident of village Jrashi, Post Office Sainj, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, made a telephonic call to Police Chowki, Chailla and reported that a truck bearing Registration No. HP-63B-8050 got stuck on the road, on suspicion and after making an inquiry by the complainant, it was found that the truck contained iron articles. The complainant suspected that the said articles are stolen articles. However, there is no specific allegation that the iron articles were stolen. It is also alleged in the complaint that there might be some more persons involved in the alleged offence. It is further alleged that truck driver might be involved in stealing. Lastly, it is prayed that the instant bail applications may be dismissed, as the petitioners have committed a serious offence and in case, at this stage, if they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the instant bail petitions may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are permanent residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending them behind the bars, as the recovery is effected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are permanent residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending them behind the bars, as the recovery is effected. He has further argued that the instant petitions may be allowed and the petitioners may also be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed a serious crime and in case, at this stage, if they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are permanent residents of the place, neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police for investigation. The petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the present bail applications may be allowed. 8. Heard. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police for investigation. The petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the present bail applications may be allowed. 8. Heard. At this stage, considering the fact that the recovery is effected and the fact, which has come on record with respect to the alleged stolen articles, which is stated to be ‘kabaad’ (trash) i.e. iron scraps, and the fact that stolen articles were recovered from the store of the Contractor and the factum that a litigation is pending inter se parties, and also the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, they are not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, their custody is not at all required by the police, considering the fact that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, as they are joining and co-operating in the investigation and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the instant petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 5/2022, dated 23.1.2022, under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla, be forthwith released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court/police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court/police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioners will 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. 9. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of. 10. 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 merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.