IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 653 of 2011 Date of decision: 1.9.2011 _______________________________________________________ Dharmender and another ….. Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This is an application for releasing the petitioners on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.172/11 dated 10.8.2011, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan under Section 379 IPC. The Status report has been filed which has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that case has been registered against petitioners under Section 379 IPC at Police Station, Nalagarh. The petitioners were arrested on 10.8.2011 and since 16.8.2011 they are in judicial lock up. The petitioners filed an bail application before learned Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, who rejected the same on 18.8.2011. The petitioners are living at Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes Chandigarh and the father of petitioner No.1 is the uncle of respondent No.2, he is having own house at Chandigarh. 3. The petitioners are not connected with the commission of offence. The investigation in the case is complete. The detention of the petitioners now is not required. The petitioners are innocent and they are ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Assistant Advocate General on the basis of status report. On the personal search of the petitioner No.2, an amount of ` 14000/- was recovered and from the personal search of petitioner No.1 another amount of ` 5300/- was recovered, both of them could not give satisfactory replies regarding the cash found with them. During investigation the petitioner No.2 made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and got recovered the amount. It has been alleged that the petitioners are operating in the form of a gang and stealing money from the ATMs. The petitioners are residents of far away places out side the State and in case they are released on bail the possibility cannot be ruled out that they will abscond and will not be traceable. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the police file. The complainant has alleged theft of ` 2000/- from his account by petitioners through ATM. The petitioner No.2 has made the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the amount has been recovered. No such recovery has been made from petitioner No.1 nor any disclosure statement or other material has been pointed out against him except the allegation of the complainant. 6. The theft amount is small but the investigating agency has alleged that the petitioners are part of the gang operating in the area and they are stealing the amount from the ATMs. Some cash amount was recovered from the petitioners at the time of their personal search which they could not explain. The cases of theft from ATMs are increasing, therefore, even though the amount involved in the present case is small but it cannot be taken lightly. 7. In any case, in view of material on record the petitioner No.1 has made out a case for releasing him on bail in FIR No.172/11 dated 10.8.2011, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan under Section 379 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount residing within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate and to the satisfaction of learned trial Magistrate, with the condition that petitioner No.1 shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The bail application of the petitioner No.2 is rejected at this stage. 8. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’. September 1, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.