Judgment S. S. Nijjar, J. 1. - On the basis of the FIR registered at the instance of the servant, the present petitioner along with two sisters were arrested on being suspected of having committed an offence under Sections 302, 307 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and other two sisters namely Balwinder Kaur and Hardeep Kaur are all married and settled at their in laws places. In the FIR, it is stated that at about 9.00 p. m. the servant Mohinder Lal went to the house of the deceased. The deceased was having some tablets in his hand. He was distributing the same to the members of his family. He told the family members to take the tablets with milk. The servant had also asked for the tablet but he was not given the same. Thereafter, the servant said to have gone to sleep. He was woken up by some persons and told that the entire family of the Sarpanch (deceased) has become unconscious. These persons were got admitted in the Civil Hospital. All the persons who had taken the tablets had died. 2. A reading of the FIR shows that the Sarpanch had voluntarily taken the tablets himself and distributed the same to his family members. 3. Mr. Mann has brought to the notice of this Court that although the offence was registered under Sec.302 IPC yet it has not been converted to Sec.306 IPC. Apart from this, there is no allegation whatsoever in the FIR as to the reason why the deceased distributed medicines. 4. According to the Investigating Officer, the reason has now become known while recording the statement of some of the relatives. All these three sisters had made an application for bail before the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. 5. The sisters namely Balwinder Kaur and Hardeep Kaur have been granted bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000.00 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/duty Magistrate. Amarjit Kaur, the present petitioner has been denied bail and her case is being distinguished on the basis that she had direct dispute with the deceased. At this preliminary stage, it would be rather difficult to put any evidentiary value on the statement recorded of the other relatives. Amarjit Kaur, the present petitioner has been denied bail and her case is being distinguished on the basis that she had direct dispute with the deceased. At this preliminary stage, it would be rather difficult to put any evidentiary value on the statement recorded of the other relatives. Furthermore, bail is not to be denied to a person on the basis of the gravity of the offence. Nor the bail is denied to the person as a measure of punishment. The purpose of keeping the person in custody is to ensure an independent investigation. No individual ought to be lightly deprived of his/her liberty. Merely because some of statements made by some relatives attribute some motive to the petitioner is no ground for denying the same concession of bail to her as is given to the other coaccused. The allegation against the petitioner is that she had slapped the deceased on his face in the presence of his family members. Otherwise, there is nothing to distinguished the case of the other two sisters from that of the petitioner. From the statements of the witnesses, it becomes apparent that it was the parents of the deceased who were exhorting him to die. As noted earlier the evidentary value of these statements shall be seen at the trial. Like the other two sisters the petitioner is also married. She lives in the village of her husband. She also has small children. Thus there seems to be no distinction between the case of the three sisters for the purposes of bail. In view of the above, the application for bail is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Jalandhar. Petition allowed.