JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - By way of present bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr. P.C, 1973 prayer has been made for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 195 of 2017, dated 18.10.2017, under Sections 452, 353, 332, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sequel to order dated 24.10.2017, ASI Pyare Lal, Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, has come present in Court alongwith the record of the case. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned. 3. Perusal of the record/status report suggest that aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the bail petitioner at the behest of complainant namely Ramesh Chand, who at that relevant time was working as Election Kanungo at Ghumarwin. As per the complainant, bail petitioner, under the influence of liquor, entered into the office of the complainant and started clicking photographs, when complainant objected to the clicking of photographs by the bail petitioner, he gave beatings to the complainant in presence of other officials present in the office. Though, police got complainant medically examined at Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin immediately after the incident, but since no Radiologist was available at Ghumarwin, complainant/victim was taken to Bilaspur and the report is still awaited. 4. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner refuted all the allegations contained in status report and contended that bail petitioner is being falsely implicated by the complainant. Mr. Khajuria, further contended that no such incident, as has been reported in the aforesaid FIR, took place in the office of the complainant, rather scuffle, if any, between bail petitioner and complainant took place in tea shop adjacent to the office of complainant. Mr. Khajuria, further contended that bail petitioner is a local resident and shall always be available for investigation as well as trial and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice and as such, he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing aforesaid prayer having been made by Mr. Mr. Khajuria, further contended that bail petitioner is a local resident and shall always be available for investigation as well as trial and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice and as such, he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing aforesaid prayer having been made by Mr. Khajuria, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, contended that bare perusal of record/status report suggests that bail petitioner under the influence of liquor unauthorizedly entered into the office of the complainant and thereafter, gave beatings to the complainant, who at that relevant time, was discharging his official duties. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that as per record, bail petitioner is a person of quarrelsome nature and many other cases have been registered against him and as such, he does not deserve any leniency and indulgence of this Court. However, Mr. Chauhan, fairly submitted before this Court that sequel to order dated 24.10.2017, bail petitioner has joined the investigation and at this stage, nothing is to be recovered from the bail petitioner. Mr. Chauhan, further stated that in case this Court intends to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, he may be directed to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency. 6. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 7. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (viii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (ix) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the order dated 24.10.2017 is made absolute subject to following conditions:- (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 9. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 10. Any observations made here-in-above shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. 11. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of.