JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. This is a 1st bail application seeking regular bail in Case Crime No. 342 of 2012, under Sections 304 I.P.C, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. An F.I.R. was got registered on 17.10.2012 under Sections 304 I.P.C. with Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar by the mother-in-law of the present applicant, inter alia, stating therein that applicant is a loose character lady; when Amit, husband of the applicant, used to go to his office, some loose character boys used to visit present applicant; whenever informant (mother-in-law of the present applicant) resisted, applicant used to abuse her and some time used to beat her; applicant extended threat to the informant to the effect that applicant would get Amit killed and would get service under the Dying-in-harness Rules; Amit was found laying on the road drunk on 14.06.2012 while his motorcycle was parked near him; having received information, applicant brought back Amit in her room in a pedal rikshaw; Amit was killed by strangulating him; without getting the post mortem done, his dead body was disposed of and present applicant falsely declared that Amit committed suicide. Present applicant preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 1088 of 2012 before this Court assailing the F.I.R. in question. Coordinated Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.11.2012, was pleased to grant stay against the arrest of the present applicant pursuant to the F.I.R. in question during the investigation. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. whereupon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Haridwar was pleased to take cognizance vide order dated 05.03.2013. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1088 of 2012, after submission of the charge-sheet, was dismissed as withdrawn. Present applicant thereafter approached this Court by way of filing Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., being Criminal Misc. Application No. 276 of 2013, assailing the charge-sheet as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 05.03.2013. On 12.07.2013, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that applicant would surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on or before 2nd August, 2013 in compliance of the cognizance order dated 05.03.2013 and shall move an appropriate regular bail application before the learned Sessions Judge Haridwar on or before 08.08.2013. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge be directed to decide the bail application sympathetically. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge be directed to decide the bail application sympathetically. On 12.07.2013, this Court passed order as under :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall surrender / appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, on or before 02.08.2013, in compliance of cognizance order dated 05.03.2013 and shall move appropriate application seeking regular bail before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar on or before 08.08.2013. He further submits that in view of principles laid down by this Court in WPCRL No. 758 of 2013 (Hari Gupta Vs. State of Uttarakhand) decided on 26.06.2013, petitioner should not be arrested and sent to judicial custody unnecessarily. In the light of above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permitted to be withdrawn. Petitioner shall appear / surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, on or before 02.08.2013, in compliance of cognizance order dated 05.03.2013, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner shall move an interim bail application and on the interim bail application, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall enlarge the petitioner on interim bail on furnishing his personal bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate for the period, till bail application is decided by the Sessions Judge. If petitioner fails to appear / surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar till 02.08.2013, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be at liberty to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law. It is further clarified that if after appearing / surrendering before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, regular bail application is not moved by the petitioner before Sessions Judge till 08.08.2013, interim bail granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall stand cancelled automatically in the afternoon of 08.08.2013. However, if bail application is moved on or before 08.08.2013, the same shall be decided by the Sessions Judge, at its own merit, in accordance with law, without any unnecessary delay. Let copy of this order be forwarded to the Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar immediately for information.” In compliance of the order dated 12.07.2013, applicant appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Haridwar in compliance of cognizance / summoning order and she was released on interim bail and thereafter regular bail application was moved before the Sessions Judge Haridwar which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.07.2013. I have heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Mr. Vipul Sharma and Mr. I have heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Mr. Vipul Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.S. Rautela, learned A.G.A for the State and have carefully perused the record. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that since applicant was not arrested during the investigation and applicant appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Haridwar in compliance of the cognizance/summoning order as directed by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2013, therefore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have released the applicant on furnishing her personal bond and sureties as contemplated under Section 88 Cr.P.C. to appear during the trial and there was absolutely no need to seek regular bail. It is further contended that after filing of charge-sheet applicant need not be sent to judicial custody as applicant was never arrested during the investigation. Applicant was neither absconder nor was having any criminal history nor applicant could have indulged in similar offence, therefore, her judicial custody was not at all required. It is further contended that even learned Sessions Judge has committed legal wrong by declining the bail. On the other hand, Mr. K.S. Rautela, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that Section 88 of the Cr. P.C. is not independent and is always subject to the limitations provided under Sections 209, 437 and 439 Cr. P.C. Mr. Rautela further contended that applicant does not deserve bail considering the gravity of the offence. To appreciate the respective contention of the learned counsel for the parties, few facts need to be narrated which are as under :- Applicant was never arrested during the investigation, since there was a stay against her arrest; applicant is not reported to have misused the stay; applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit; offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. is triable by Court of Session. In view of the rival contentions made, this Court has to see as to when arrest should be made and as to when bail should be granted. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1994 (4) SCC 260 has observed as under: “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1994 (4) SCC 260 has observed as under: “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.” Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 has held as under :- “55. This Court defined the term "personal liberty" immediately after the Constitution came in force in India in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 . The expression 'personal liberty' has wider as well narrow meaning. In the wider sense it includes not only immunity from arrest and detention but also freedom of speech, association etc. In the narrow sense, it means immunity from arrest and detention. The juristic conception of 'personal liberty', when used the latter sense, is that it consists freedom of movement and locomotion. 56. Mukherjea, J. in A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 , observed that 'Personal Liberty' means liberty relating to or concerning the person or body of the individual and it is, in this sense, antithesis of physical restraint or coercion. 'Personal Liberty' means a personal right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification. This negative right constitutes the essence of personal liberty. 'Personal Liberty' means a personal right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification. This negative right constitutes the essence of personal liberty. Patanjali Shastri, J. however, said that whatever may be the generally accepted connotation of the expression 'personal liberty', it was used in Article 21 in a sense which excludes the freedom dealt with in Article 19. Thus, the Court gave a narrow interpretation to 'personal liberty'. This Court excluded certain varieties of rights, as separately mentioned in Article 19, from the purview of 'personal liberty' guaranteed by Article 21. 85. It is a matter of common knowledge that a large number of undertrials are languishing in jail for a long time even for allegedly committing very minor offences. This is because Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure has not been allowed its full play. The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 clearly mentioned that Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is extraordinary because it was incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and before that other provisions for grant of bail were Sections 437 and 439 Code of Criminal Procedure It is not extraordinary in the sense that it should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. Some courts of smaller strength have erroneously observed that Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. Those orders are contrary to the law laid down by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 . 86. According to the report of the National Police Commission, the power of arrest is grossly abused and clearly violates the personal liberty of the people, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the courts need to take serious notice of it. When conviction rate is admittedly less than 10%, then the police should be slow in arresting the accused. The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court. 87. The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court. 87. The complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly examined including the aspect whether the complainant has filed false or frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant and the investigating officer is established then action be taken against the investigating officer in accordance with law. 90. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage. 110. The Law Commission in July 2002 has severely criticized the police of our country for the arbitrary use of power of arrest which, the Commission said, is the result of the vast discretionary powers conferred upon them by this Code. The Commission expressed concern that there is no internal mechanism within the police department to prevent misuse of law in this manner and the stark reality that complaint lodged in this regard does not bring any result. The Commission intends to suggest amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code and has invited suggestions from various quarters. Reference is made in this Article to the 41st Report of the Law Commission wherein the Commission saw 'no justification' to require a person to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail even when there are reasonable grounds for holding that the person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty. Discretionary power to order anticipatory bail is required to be exercised keeping in mind these sentiments and spirit of the judgments of this Court in Sibbia's case (supra) and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260 . 113. Discretionary power to order anticipatory bail is required to be exercised keeping in mind these sentiments and spirit of the judgments of this Court in Sibbia's case (supra) and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260 . 113. The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 117. In case, the State consider the following suggestions in proper perspective then perhaps it may not be necessary to curtail the personal liberty of the accused in a routine manner. These suggestions are only illustrative and not exhaustive : 1) Direct the accused to join investigation and only when the accused does not cooperate with the investigating agency, then only the accused be arrested. 2) Seize either the passport or such other related documents, such as, the title deeds of properties or the Fixed Deposit Receipts/Share Certificates of the accused. 3) Direct the accused to execute bonds; 4) The accused may be directed to furnish sureties of number of persons which according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the particular case. 5) The accused be directed to furnish undertaking that he would not visit the place where the witnesses reside so that the possibility of tampering of evidence or otherwise influencing the course of justice can be avoided. 6) Bank accounts be frozen for small duration during investigation. 118. In case the arrest is imperative, according to the facts of the case, in that event, the arresting officer must clearly record the reasons for the arrest of the accused before the arrest in the case diary, but in exceptional cases where it becomes imperative to arrest the accused immediately, the reasons be recorded in the case diary immediately after the arrest is made without loss of any time so that the court has an opportunity to properly consider the case for grant or refusal of bail in the light of reasons recorded by the arresting officer.” Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef reported in 2011 (1) SCC 784 has held as under: “15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail.” Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held as under:- “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, ‘necessity’ is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 28. In the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308 , this Court opined: “2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.”] Section 41 of the Cr. P.C. as amended vide Act No. 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.11.2010 reads as under :- “41. When police may arrest without warrant. – Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person – [(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence; (b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:- (i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence; (ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary- (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing. [Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.] (ba) against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence;] (c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the State Government; or (d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing; or (e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody; or (f) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or (g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or (h) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule made under sub-section (5) of Section 356; or (i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition. [(2) Subject to the provisions of section 42, no person concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom a complaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having so concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of a Magistrate.]” The bare perusal of Section 41 of the Cr. P.C. would reveal that if a person commits the cognizable offence in the presence of Police Officer punishable upto seven years or if Police Officer receives a complaint or credible information or has reasonable suspicion that such person has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, such Police Officer may arrest such person for any or more such reasons as contemplated under Clause (ii) of Section 41 (1) (b) of the Code. Such Police Officer shall record such reasons in writing at the time of making arrest. Arrest can also be made if any of the condition contemplated under Clause (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) exists. However, if offence is punishable for the period more than seven years, then such person may be arrested as provided under Clause (ba) of Section 41 (i) of the code. In view of the above, it can safely be said that personal liberty as granted by Article 21 of the Constitution of India should not be curtailed by making routine arrest of the accused. In my considered opinion, if either of the ground as mentioned in Section 41 (1) (a), (b), (ba) or (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i) is not available, then arrest of the accused should be avoided. In the present case, having considered the averment made in the F.I.R., this Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the accused /applicant vide order dated 09.11.2012 passed in Writ Petition Criminal No. 1088 of 2012. Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted against the present applicant. Now question arises:- As to whether present applicant ought to have been released on taking her personal bond and two sureties as provided under Section 88 of the Cr. P.C. or she was required to seek regular bail under Section 437 read with 439 Cr. P.C. Section 88, 209 and 437 of Cr. Now question arises:- As to whether present applicant ought to have been released on taking her personal bond and two sureties as provided under Section 88 of the Cr. P.C. or she was required to seek regular bail under Section 437 read with 439 Cr. P.C. Section 88, 209 and 437 of Cr. P.C. reads as under :- “88.Power to take bond for appearance - When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial. 209.Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it - When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall- [(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;] (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial ; (c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence; (d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session. 437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. 437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. (1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but – (i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; (ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of [a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years]; Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm: Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that It is just and proper so to do for any other special reason: Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court:] [Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court under this sub-section without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor.] (2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, [the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail] or at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided. (3)When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the [Court shall impose the conditions:- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with evidence, and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.] (4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2), shall record in writing his or its [reasons or special reasons] for so doing. (5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. (6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non- bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. (7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non- bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.” The combined reading of Sections 88, 209 and 437 Cr. P.C. would demonstrate that if an accused appears before the Magistrate in compliance of summon or warrant issued against him on a private complaint or police report and he is an accused for offence punishable less than seven years and he was never arrested during the investigation, Magistrate should ask such an accused to furnish his personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate to remain present before the Court during the trial. However, if accused, in a offence triable by the Session Court or in a offence punishable for the period more than seven years, appears before the Magistrate, then such accused must move application for regular bail as provided under Section 437 or 439 Cr. P.C. and learned Court shall decide the bail application as per the scope of Sections 437 and 439 of Cr. .C. Reading of Section 209 Cr. P.C. would demonstrate that if an accused appears before the learned Magistrate for the offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session, learned Magistrate while exercising power under Section 88 Cr. P.C., shall not release him on furnishing personal bond and sureties and shall remand the accused under custody until the conclusion of the trial subject to the grant of regular bail as contemplated under Sections 437 and 439 Cr. P.C. While considering the bail application, learned Court must see as to whether arrest was at all required as contemplated under Section 41 of the Code and as to whether detention of the accused is justified during the trial, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Principles enumerated in Section 41 of the Code and under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code should be kept in mind while deciding the bail application. Principles enumerated in Section 41 of the Code and under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code should be kept in mind while deciding the bail application. If accused was not arrested during the investigation and he has not misused his liberty and in fact has cooperated with the investigation, his bail application must be considered liberally. Ordinarily, bail should not be denied merely because charge-sheet has been submitted against him. Bail can be denied only when offence is grave, or there is an apprehension that while on bail accused may temper with the evidence or win over the important witnesses or may indulge in criminal activities. In the present case, offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. is triable by Court of Session, however, only suspicion was casted against the applicant in the F.I.R. as well in the charge-sheet and there seems to be no direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicant, therefore, she ought to have been enlarged on bail by the Session Court. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct, let the accused/applicant be released on bail on furnishing her personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. Roorkee. Bail application stands allowed accordingly. Let copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Judicial Officers of this State for information.