JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Inspector Gopal Singh, Police Station West, Shimla, is present along with record. Record perused and returned. Status report taken on record. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 45 of 2014 dated 01.04.2014, registered at Police Station, Shimla West (Boileauganj), H.P. under Sections 354, 377, 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code petitioner has filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail, in which he was granted interim protection on 03.04.2014. At the time of grant of interim order, certain conditions were imposed. Subsequently matter came up for hearing before the different Benches on different dates and the interim order continued to be in operation. 3. Learned Advocate General invites my attention to the fact that investigation is complete and now challan stands filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on 16.06.2014. It is not in dispute that accused has fully cooperated. 4. Law with regard to grant of bail is now well settled. The apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , laid down the following parameters for grant of bail:- "111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." (Emphasis supplied) 5. The view stands reiterated by the apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 6. The view stands reiterated by the apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 6. Taking into account the entire attending circumstances emanating from the record, including the nature and the date of offence and the time of reporting the matter to the authorities, as also the fact that accused has fully cooperated and no recovery is to be effected, and also in view of the law discussed, herein above, I am of the considered view that petitioner has made out a case for confirmation of interim order dated 03.04.2014 as also 16.04.2014. Ordered accordingly. 7. While confirming the orders, petition is disposed of with the following directions:- Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate on 24.06.2014, on which date he shall move an appropriate application, if so advised, for grant of bail in compliance of provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Needless to add, concerned Magistrate shall deal with the application, in accordance with law. 8. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior counsel submits that question of imposing condition No. 1 in the interim order dated 16.04.2014 does not survive at all in view of filing of challan. Trial Court shall also consider this aspect while passing the orders. 9. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall conclude the trial uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.