ORDER By this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks his release on bail for the commission of the offences under Section 302/34, I.P.C. pursuant to FIR No. 319 of 1994 dated 21-9-1994. 2. Shortly stated, the facts and circumstances emerging from the police record are that there existed a dispute regarding a piece of land (Ghasni) in between the complainant party on one side and the accused party on the other. Shri Raghubir Singh is the senior member of the complainant party, whereas Shri Molak Ram is that of accused party. Both claimed ownership to the land. The complainant partys claim was based on the basis of land obtained in exchange in the year 1978, whereas accused party claimed to be in settled possession thereof since the time of his father. On 21-9-1994 at about 10.30 A.M., the accused party along with Shri Lahor Singh and Kartar Chand came to the house of complainant, Ranghubir Singh. It appears that the accused party had complained of interference into this piece of land by the complainant party and for settling the matter, they had called Lahor Singh, Lambardar and Kartar Chand, a member of the Gram Panchyat. As per prosecution, Raghubir Singh was called and told by the accused party to refrain from cutting and removing the grass from the land of accused party and in this respect. Molak Ram tried to show some documents in respect of his claim based on exchange, but the other party refused to accept formers claim and declared that they can establish their claim in a Court of law. At this stage, Sukhdev, co-accused of applicant got enraged and he went to the disputed place nearby where wife of Raghubir Singh, namely, Smt. Kaulpati and her daughter Vidya Devi were cutting grass. He started demolishing the stones from a wall existing there, whereupon Smt. Kaulpati (since deceased) asked Sukhdev, accused to refrain himself from doing so and at this juncture, accused Sukhdev picked up a stone and threw it towards Kaulpati which hit on the back side of her head, and she fell down. Sukhdev accused simultaneously is stated to have jumped towards her, whereupon Raghubir Singh, complainant as per the prosecution, ran towards his wife in order to save her from the clutches of the accused, Sukhdev. Sukhdev accused simultaneously is stated to have jumped towards her, whereupon Raghubir Singh, complainant as per the prosecution, ran towards his wife in order to save her from the clutches of the accused, Sukhdev. It is the prosecution version that Molak Ram, the applicant caught hold of Raghubir Singh by his arm, whereas Sukhdev inflicted injuries on his (Raghubir Singh) person with stone blows. The other two persons, namely, Kartar Chand and Lahor Singh also reached the spot, but both accused ran away. It is also prosecutions version that Molak Ram, accused inflicted leg blows upon Smt. Vidya, while fleeing from that place. Thus, according to the police, both the accused committed the crime after hatching a conspiracy and with a common intention to do away with the life of Smt. Kaulpati and others. 3. In the abovesaid incident, Smt. Kaulpati succumbed to the injuries on the spot, whereas Raghubir sustained injuries on his person like lacerated wounds and abrasions. Statements of Lahor Singh and Kartar Singh, who witnessed the occurrence have also been recorded. 4. At this stage, it would be pertinent to details that the incident has been reported in the first instance by Sukhdev at 2.45 P.M. to the police of Police Station, Rohru vide daily diary report No. 13 dated 21-9-1994. Police record produced and perused today by this Court shows that no investigation has been conducted on the basis of counter-report lodged by Sukhdev, accused. However, the investigation pursuant to the aforesaid FIR do show some injuries sustained by Sukhdev, accused as well. 5. From the material placed before me, it is evident that Sukhdev, accused is the main person involved in the occurrence. The narration of the facts in the FIR also shows that Molak Ram had attempted to get the matter settled amicably with the intervention of Lambardar and a member of Gram Panchyat referred to above. His participation in the commission of the offence even according to the prosecution prima facie appears to be after his son Sukhdev had already inflicted injuries upon the person of Smt. Kaulpati by picking up and then throwing the stone from the spot. His participation in the commission of the offence even according to the prosecution prima facie appears to be after his son Sukhdev had already inflicted injuries upon the person of Smt. Kaulpati by picking up and then throwing the stone from the spot. The police record does not reflect that both the accused were armed before they reached near the house of complainant, Raghubir Singh or even at the time they called the latter to refrain from interfering into the ownership and possession of accused party into the land in question. 6. I am not unmindful of the proposition that the bad character of a man does not disentitle him from being bailed out if the law allows it. It is well-settled that the object of detention pending criminal proceedings, is not punishment, and the law favours allowance of bail, which is the rule, and refusal is the exception. On the other hand, the social position or status of an accused person should not be taken into consideration while granting or rejecting an application for bail. 7. The applicants in this case are accused of having committed the offence of murder with common intention which is punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life. 8. Sections 437 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while conferring wide discretionary powers of Courts to grant or refuse bail, where an accused person is suspected of the commission of a non-bailable offence, imposes important limitations, in cases where there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The words "death or imprisonment for life" should be read disjunctively, so as to mean offence punishable with death or punishable with imprisonment for life. 9. In this case, initially the application was made before the learned Sessions Judge which was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (I), Shimla for consideration thereof. Vide the impugned order bail has been refused to the applicant and this application has now been again moved in this Court. It may be stated that it is not possible at this juncture to scan the evidence in order to see whether it establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, on an application for bail, simply it has to be seen whether the offence is one for which such a sentence may be awarded. It may be stated that it is not possible at this juncture to scan the evidence in order to see whether it establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, on an application for bail, simply it has to be seen whether the offence is one for which such a sentence may be awarded. The applicant along with his co-accused in this case have been accused of having committed grave offences punishable with life term of imprisonment and this is a consideration against their being released on bail. The question of severity of punishment has to be looked not from the point of view of what sentence on the facts of a particular case the Court should award, but only to see the maximum punishment which the Court may award. Thus, the grant or refusal of bail is to be considered in view of the principle that liberty of a person is his fundamental right. The guidelines in this respect can be stated that the Court generally should consider :- (a) the enormity of the charge. (b) the nature of the accusation. (c) the severity of the punishment which the conviction will entail. (d) the nature of the evidence in support of the accusation. (e) the danger of the applicants absconding if he is released on bail. (f) the danger of witnesses being tampered with. (g) the protracted nature of the trial, (h) opportunity to the applicant for preparation of his defence and access to his counsel; and (i) the health, age and sex of the accused. 10. The abovesaid list of guidelines is not an exhaustive one. There may be other considerations as well, which may emerge from the facts and circumstances on the record. 11. In the instant case, yet charge has not been framed. The case is at its initial stage. Shri M. L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General has stated at the Bar that in the instant case statements of eye-witnesses have already been recorded. It is only the Chemical Examiners report, the statement of the Medical Experts or the investigation pursuant to the counter-report view D. D. No. 13 of the even date lodged by Sukhdev accused which have to be carried on. It is only the Chemical Examiners report, the statement of the Medical Experts or the investigation pursuant to the counter-report view D. D. No. 13 of the even date lodged by Sukhdev accused which have to be carried on. Thus, applying the above said tests to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, but without expressing any opinion as to the merits or demerits of the material collected by the police, to my mind, keeping in view the age, extent of participation of the applicant in the commission of the offences in question, the application is liable to he accepted subject to the applicant furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer in the event of his arrest. It may be clarified that this order shall be subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the applicant is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer on 24-10-1994 at 10.00 A. M. in person of Police Station, Rohru and on all other dates of which he is intimated in writing specifying the date, place and time. The application stands disposed of in terms of the above. 12. Copy dasti against usual charges. Order accordingly