JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. These four Bail Applications have been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.104 of 2023, registered at police station Gangnahar, District Haridwar. Applicants are in judicial custody under Sections 419, 420, 452, 467, 468, 471 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. These four Bail Applications have arisen from one case crime number i.e. Case Crime No.104 of 2023. Therefore, these four bail applications are being considered and decided by this common order. Record of First Bail Application No.1320 of 2023 will be leading file. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.02.2023, five unknown persons went to the house of the informant. They introduced themselves as Income Tax Officers. They searched his house. Informant had kept Rs.20,00,000/-(Twenty Lakh) at his house for the marriage of his daughter, which they took with them. The First Information Report was lodged by the informant Sudhir Kumar Jain on 11.02.2023. Applicant-Dheeraj along with Salman Alias Samar were arrested on 22.02.2023. At that time, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was recovered from the possession of applicant Dheeraj and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a cheque book were recovered from the possession of applicant Salman Alias Samar. They disclosed the names of the other applicants in their confessional statements. On 01.03.2023, a sum of Rs.38,000/- was recovered from the possession of the applicant Parvez. He was arrested. Applicant Ashish Malik surrendered before the court concerned. He was taken on police custody remand. A vehicle, I-20 Registration No.DL-7CU-3567 was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant-Ashish Malik. According to the prosecution, all four applicants reached the informant’s house on the said car. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sajjad Ahmad, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing) contended that according to the prosecution, house of the informant was well equipped with the CCTV Cameras, but, no such CCTV footage have been annexed with the charge-sheet. CDR and mobile tower location have not been brought on record. Nothing was recovered from the applicants. The said recoveries were planted. Test Identification Parade was not conducted. Applicant-Ashish Malik and Dheeraj are the permanent residents of District Ghaziabad. CDR and mobile tower location have not been brought on record. Nothing was recovered from the applicants. The said recoveries were planted. Test Identification Parade was not conducted. Applicant-Ashish Malik and Dheeraj are the permanent residents of District Ghaziabad. Applicant-Salman alias Samar is a permanent resident of District Muzaffarnagar and applicant-Parvez is a permanent resident of District Haridwar. Therefore, there is no chance of their absconding. Applicants have no criminal history, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 6. Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate contended that the said car does not belong to the applicant-Ashish Malik. 7. Mr. Sajjad Ahmad, Advocate contended that the First Information Report was lodged three days after the alleged incident, in which, there is no mention of the cheque book. 8. Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. and Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate opposed the bail applications and contended that applicants went to the informant’s house in a car, whose Registration number is DL-7CU-3567. But, they have conceded that the applicants were not the owners of the said car. The said car was not parked in front of the informant’s house. They have also conceded that the Test Identification Parade was not conducted, and, the applicants have no criminal history. 9. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused persons in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicants behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve bail at this stage. 11. The Bail Applications are allowed. 12. 11. The Bail Applications are allowed. 12. Let the applicants, namely, Ashish Malik, Dheeraj, Salman alias Samar and Parvez be released on bail on their executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :- i) Applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment; ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 13. It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. 14. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connecting Bail Applications.