JUDGMENT : - P.S. Rana, Judge. Present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 84 of 2014 dated 10.08.2014 registered under Section 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Ani District Kullu H.P. 2. It is pleaded that wife of applicant has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the applicant. It is further pleaded that said complaint is counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the applicant. It is further pleaded that applicant is a government employee and is innocent and bail and will not induce or threat to any person. Prayer for acceptance of bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report, FIR No. 84 of 2014 dated 10.8.2014 registered under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Ani District Kullu H.P. There is recital in police report that marriage between Kamlesh and Sushil was performed in the year 2005 at village Ani District Kullu. There is further recital in police report that for 2/3 years husband of complainant and her mother-in-law behaved properly with complainant and thereafter behaviour of husband of complainant and her mother-in-law changed. There is further recital in police report that Kamlesh tolerated the behaviour of her husband and mother-in-law on the pretext that after lapse of time everything would become normal. There is further recital in police report that husband of complainant Kamlesh and her mother-in-law started quarrelling with Kamlesh and also demanded dowry. There is further recital in police report that husband of Kamlesh is posted in Block Development Office as Junior Engineer since four years. There is further recital in police report that husband of Kamlesh has relations with one girl namely Puja. There is further recital in police report that husband of Kamlesh namely Sushil intends to marry Puja. There is further recital in police report that on dated 23.7.2014 Kamelsh went to meet her husband along with her daughter at Theog but her husband beaten the complainant and that Puja is harassing through mobile No. 98169-82829. There is further recital in police report that husband of complainant namely Sushil Kumar is forcing the complainant Kamlesh to divorce him so that husband of complainant could remarry with Puja. There is further recital in police report that husband of complainant namely Sushil Kumar is forcing the complainant Kamlesh to divorce him so that husband of complainant could remarry with Puja. There is further recital in police report that husband and mother-in-law of complainant are mentally and physically harassing Kamlesh. As per complaint the case was registered. Statements of prosecution witnesses recorded and marriage certificate from Gram Pancahyat and family register obtained. There is recital in police report that no investigation from applicant is required. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any offence cannot be decided at this stage. The same fact will be decided when the case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 6. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that investigation is complete and case will be decided in due course of time and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in See 2012 Cri.L.J. 702 Apex Court DB702, titled Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It was held that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is exceptional. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that accused should not be kept in jail for an indefinite period. 7. It was held that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is exceptional. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that accused should not be kept in jail for an indefinite period. 7. In view of the fact that investigation is complete in present case and in view of the fact that trial will be concluded in due course of time, Court is of the opinion that it would be in the ends of justice to allow the bail application. Court is of the opinion that if anticipatory bail application is allowed then interest of State and general public will not be adversely affected in present case. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General that if bail is granted to applicant then applicant will induce threat and influence the prosecution witnesses and on this ground anticipatory bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons the terms and conditions of bail order then prosecution will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail. 9. In view of above stated facts anticipatory bail application filed by applicant is allowed and interim bail granted on dated 14.8.2014 is made absolute on following terms and conditions. (i) That the applicant shall join the investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) That the applicant will not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (iv) That applicant will not commit similar offence qua which he is accused. (v) That applicant will furnish his residential address to the Investigating Officer in written manner. Anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. All pending application(s), if any also disposed of.