ORDER : 1. Present bail application is filed under Section 438 Cr. P.C. relating to FIR No. 16/2016 dated 29.01.2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 382, 504, 34 IPC in Police Station Ghumarwin District Bilaspur (H.P.). 2. It is pleaded that false FIR is filed against the petitioner and petitioner is innocent person. It is further pleaded that petitioner will abide by all the terms and conditions of bail and will make himself available for interrogation by the investigating agency and 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. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report complainant Raj Kumar is driver by profession. On dated 28.01.2016 at about 6.00 PM in the evening complainant Raj Kumar alongwith his brother were proceeding from Punjab to Jahu District Hamirpur (H.P.) and when they reached at place Silah at 2.00 AM in the night then accused persons signalled to stop the truck. There is recital in the police report that driver did not stop the truck. Thereafter accused persons came upon Bike No. HP-28-A-1007 and blocked the path and abused the complainant and forcibly boarded down the driver of the vehicle and his brother from the truck and beaten the complainant and driver of the vehicle. There is further recital in the police report that accused persons also took Rs. 15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands) forcibly. There is further recital in the police report that two women namely Hansari Devi and Neelam Kumari came and thereafter accused persons left the place of incident. Case was registered and matter was investigated. MLC of injured persons conducted. Site plan was prepared and photographs also obtained and blood clotted clothes of injured persons also took into possession vide seizure memo. Bike No. HP-28-A-1007 was also took into possession vide seizure memo. There is further recital in the police report that Rs. 15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands) already stood recovered and petitioner is not required for investigation purpose and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. There is further recital in the police report that investigation is completed and report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. would be filed in the competent court of law. 4. 15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands) already stood recovered and petitioner is not required for investigation purpose and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. There is further recital in the police report that investigation is completed and report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. would be filed in the competent court of law. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners. Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in present bail application. (1) Whether bail application filed by the petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? (2) Final Order. Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case will be finally disposed of by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that investigation is completed in the present case and petitioner is not required for investigation purpose and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and petitioner will abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court and on this ground bail application be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are to be considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence. (ii) Character of the evidence. (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused. (iv) A reasonable possibility of the presence of accused not being secured at the trial or investigation. (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with. (vi) Larger interests of the public or the State. Gurcharan Singh and Others vs. State (Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 179 and State vs. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 . It was held in case reported in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 Crl. Law Journal 702 (SC) that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at trial and object of bail is not punitive. It was held that grant of bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception. It was held in case reported in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 Crl. Law Journal 702 (SC) that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at trial and object of bail is not punitive. It was held that grant of bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception. It was also held that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that it is not in the interest of justice that accused should be kept in jail for an indefinite period. In view of the fact that investigation is completed in the present case and in view of the fact that petitioner is not required for investigation purpose as per police report filed by the investigating agency and in view of the fact that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on bail. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then petitioner will induce and threat prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of merits for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditional bail will be granted to the petitioner. Court is of the opinion that conditions will be imposed upon the petitioner in bail order that petitioner will not induce or threat prosecution witnesses after grant of bail. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner will induce or threat prosecution witnesses after grant of bail then prosecution agency or investigating agency will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. In view of the above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in affirmative. Point No. 2 (Final order). 9. In view of my findings on point No. 1 above bail application filed by petitioner under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is allowed on following terms and conditions. (i) That petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. (ii) That petitioner will attend proceedings of the trial Court regularly till conclusion of the trial. (i) That petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. (ii) That petitioner will attend proceedings of the trial Court regularly till conclusion of the trial. (iii) That petitioner 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. (iv) That petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (v) That petitioner will not commit similar offence qua which he is accused. In the event of arrest petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50000/- (fifty thousands) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of investigating officer as per conditions mentioned supra. Observations made hereinabove will not affect merits of the case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of the present bail application. Cr. MP (M) No. 87 of 2016 is disposed of.