JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 175 of 2014 dated 28.8.2014 registered under Sections 307, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Sadar District Bilaspur (HP). 2. It is pleaded that investigation is complete and no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and further pleaded that applicant will join the investigation as and when required by police. It is further pleaded that bail application filed by applicant be allowed. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 175 of 2014 dated 28.8.2014 registered under Sections 307, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sadar District Bilaspur (H.P.) against the applicant. There is recital in police report that on dated 28.8.2014 Mohender Pal complainant along with his friend Rajesh went to Luhnu ground and at about 6.15 PM in the evening complainant and his friend thought for boating. There is further recital in police report that thereafter vehicle having registration No. HP-69A-0973 came and accused persons talked with the complainant and his friend Rajesh and enquired about name and address of complainant. There is further recital in police report that thereafter complainant demanded pen from the accused persons and told that he would write his name and address and thereafter one of co-accused caught hold the complainant and other co-accused inflicted injuries upon the head and left leg of complainant with baseball. There is further recital in police report that blood oozed out from the head of complainant and complainant also sustained incised injuries in his left leg. There is further recital in police report that after inflicting the injuries both accused persons fled from the place of incident by using the abusive and insulting language and also threatened the complainant. There is recital in police report that medical examination of injured was got conducted in Regional Hospital Bilaspur and MLC obtained. There is recital in police report that site plan was also prepared and statements of prosecution witnesses were also recorded. There is further recital in police report that injured remained as indoor patient in the hospital w.e.f. 28.8.2014 to 1.9.2014. There is recital in police report that site plan was also prepared and statements of prosecution witnesses were also recorded. There is further recital in police report that injured remained as indoor patient in the hospital w.e.f. 28.8.2014 to 1.9.2014. There is further recital in police report that blood clotted T-shirt and vehicle having registration No. HP-69A-0973 were took into possession. There is further recital in police report that as per opinion of medical officer injury No. 1 sustained by the injured was grievous in nature and said injury was dangerous to life. There is further recital in police report that baseball and bat were also recovered vide seizure memo and as per opinion of medical officer injuries No. 1 and 2 could be inflicted with baseball and bat. There is further recital in police report that another FIR No. 47 of 2007 dated 24.2.2007 was registered against the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 341, 504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Ghumarwin and applicant has been acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court- 3 Ghumarwin on dated 4.10.2012 and there is further recital in police report that another FIR No. 87 of 2014 dated 8.5.2014 is registered against the applicant under Sections 451, 323, 325 and 506 IPC in P.S. Ghumarwin which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghumarwin. There is recital in police report that if applicant is released on bail then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witnesses and will also destroy the evidence. Prayer for rejection of bail application is sought. 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. Following points arise for determination in this anticipatory bail application:- 1. Whether the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that no recovery is to be effected in present case and present 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 and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (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. Trial of the case will be completed in due course of time. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri. L.J. 702 Apex Court DB 702, 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. 8. In view of police report that applicant has joined investigation of case and in view of police report that no recovery is to be effected from the applicant Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Court is of the opinion that if applicant is released on anticipatory bail then interest of State and general public will not be adversely effected. 9. Court is of the opinion that if applicant is released on anticipatory bail then interest of State and general public will not be adversely effected. 9. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant that two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 47 of 2014 dated 24.2.2007 and FIR No. 87 of 2014 dated 8.5.2014 were registered against the applicant in P.S. Ghumarwin and on this ground bail application filed by applicant be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per police report applicant has been acquitted in FIR No. 47 of 2014 dated 24.2.2007 registered under Sections 279, 337, 341, 504 and 506 IPC and as per further police report criminal case qua FIR No. 87 of 2014 dated 8.5.2014 is pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghumarwin. It is well settled law that pendency of criminal trial is not a ground to decline the bail to accused because accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court of law. It was held in case reported in (2014)9 SCC 1 titled Manoj Narula vs. Union of India that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilt. It was held that this would apply to a person accused of one or multiple offences. 10. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant that if bail is granted to applicant then applicant will induce, threat and influence the prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that condition will be imposed in the bail order to the effect that applicant will not induce and threat the prosecution witnesses. Court is of the opinion that if applicant will flout the terms and conditions of bail order then non-applicant will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail strictly in accordance with law. In view of police report that no recovery is to be effected from applicant and in view of police report that applicant has joined investigation proceedings in present case it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow anticipatory bail application. In view of above stated facts, point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 Final Order 11. In view of police report that no recovery is to be effected from applicant and in view of police report that applicant has joined investigation proceedings in present case it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow anticipatory bail application. In view of above stated facts, point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 Final Order 11. In view of findings on point No.1 bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer on following terms and conditions. (i) That the applicant will join the investigation of case in accordance with law. (ii) That applicant will 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 give his residential address in written manner to the Investigating Officer and Court. Applicant be released only if not required in any other criminal case. Bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of.