JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Bail petitioner namely, Naresh Thakur alias Neshu, who is behind the bars since 6.5.2018, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.60 of 2018, dated 6.5.2018, under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at police Station, Jawali, District Kangra Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sequel to order dated 31.5.2019, ASI Randhir Singh has come present along with the record. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, 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. Close scrutiny of the record/status report, reveals that on 5th May, 2018 Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jawali informed the police that one dead person has been brought to the hospital, who appears to have died on account of gun shot. Subsequently, it also transpired that another person, namely Rajesh Singh alias Mistri was also lying dead in Harsar Bazar. Complainant Sh. Bhawani Singh, who happened to be father of Rajesh Singh alias Mistri got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., 1973 alleging therein that he after having received information with regard to injuries suffered by his son, namely Rajesh Singh alias Mistri went to the spot, where he found his son lying dead. He also stated that his 12 bore gun was also lying on the road, which he picked up from there and after keeping the same in his house, took his son to the hospital, where he was declared dead. On the basis of aforesaid statement having been made by the complainant, formal FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner under Section 302 of IPC and under sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act. Apart from above, police also lodged FIR No.59 of 2018, dated 5.5.2018 under Section 302 of IPC and under sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act against the deceased Rajesh Singh alias Mistri on the allegation that he killed Mohan Singh alias Monu. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law. Apart from above, police also lodged FIR No.59 of 2018, dated 5.5.2018 under Section 302 of IPC and under sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act against the deceased Rajesh Singh alias Mistri on the allegation that he killed Mohan Singh alias Monu. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law. As per the information imparted to this Court, though prosecution intends to examine 70 witnesses in support of its case, but as of today, only three witnesses have been examined. 4. Mr. N.K.Thakur, learned Senior Advocate representing the bail petitioner while making this court to peruse the record/status report, strenuously argued that no case much less under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the present bail petitioner, who with a view to save his as well as lives of other persons, fired gun shot without having any intention to kill deceased Rajesh Singh alias Mistri. While referring to the records, Mr. Thakur, contended that as per own case of the prosecution, it was the deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri, who called present bail petitioner and deceased Mohan Singh alias Monu to come at Harsar Bazar and thereafter, without there being any altercation, started firing shots, which led to killing of person namely Mohan Singh alias Monu. Mr. Thakur, further contended that it is quite apparent from the investigation that deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri after having fired shot at deceased Mohan Singh alias Monu started loading 12 bore gun with an intention to kill other persons including the bail petitioner and as such, it can be safely concluded that gun shot, if any, fired from the gun of the present bail petitioner was in self defence. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, contended that investigation in the case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, who has already suffered for more than 14 months and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case bail petitioner is allowed to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period. He further stated that petitioner being local resident of the area shall always remain present for investigation as well as trial and there is no past record indicative of the fact that bail petitioner is a hardened criminal. 5. Mr. He further stated that petitioner being local resident of the area shall always remain present for investigation as well as trial and there is no past record indicative of the fact that bail petitioner is a hardened criminal. 5. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General while praying for the dismissal of the bail petition filed on behalf of the bail petitioner, contended that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, wherein admittedly two persons have lost their lives, this Court may not show any leniency while considering the bail petition. Mr. Sharma, contended that there is ample evidence on record suggestive of the fact that prior to the alleged incident, there was altercation between the present bail petitioner and the accused, who subsequently went to his house to fetch gun of his father. Mr. Sharma, further contended that at this stage, it cannot be concluded that present bail petitioner had no intention to kill the deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri because he of his own accepting the alleged challenge given by deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri came to Harsar bazar, where unfortunate accident took place. Mr. Sharma, further contended that there is no evidence that Rajesh Singh alias Mistri intended to fire a shot against the present bail petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that gun shot fired by bail petitioner was in private defence. Lastly, Mr. Sharma, contended that since challan already stands filed in the competent court of law and prosecution evidence has commenced, great prejudice would be caused in case bail petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage. He further contended that in the event of petitioner''s being enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice and he may also extend threats or dissuade other witnesses from deposing against him in a trial, which is yet to be concluded. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, it clearly emerged that prior to the alleged incident both the deceased Rajesh Singh alias Mistri and present bail petitioner along with other friends took drinks and meal at the Thresher of Mohan Singh alias Monu, whereafter an altercation took place between the deceased Mohan Singh alias Monu and deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri,whereafter deceased Mohan Singh asked Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri to leave the place. It has come in the investigation that deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri while leaving the place extended threats and challenged Mohan Singh alias Monu, present bail petitioner and other persons to come to Harsar Bazar. No doubt, record reveals that accepting challenge given by deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri, bail petitioner along with other persons came to Harsar Bazar, but evidence available on record clearly reveals that deceased Raj Kumar alias Mistri came to the Bazar with 12 bore gun of his father and he without there being any altercation, fired gun shot at the deceased Mohan Singh alias Monu. Immediately after firing aforesaid shot, Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri started reloading the gun with a view to fire gun shot on other persons and as such, there appears to be considerable force in the arguments of Mr. N.K.Thakur, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner that since Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri was in process of loading gun again, present bail petitioner apprehending threat to his life also fired from his pistol, which ultimately resulted into the death of deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Mistri. It is not in dispute that though pistol being carried by the present bail petitioner was registered in the name of his brother, but it has been fairly submitted by the Investigating Officer that bail petitioner was authorized to retain the same and as such, it cannot be said that at the time of alleged incident bail petitioner was carrying the pistol unauthorizedly. 7. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of totality of evidence to be collected on record by the prosecution, but this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, sees no reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, especially, when he has already suffered for 14 months. 8. Hon''ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period during the pendency of the trial because one is deemed to be innocent until his/her guilt, is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In the case at hand, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner''s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting bail petitioner to stringent conditions, as has been fairly stated by learned counsel representing the bail petitioner. 9. Recently, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon''ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon''ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: 2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re In human Conditions in 1382 Prisons 10. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 SCC 49; held as under: "The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." 11. Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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. 12. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. 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; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, present bail petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/( Rs. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, present bail petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/( Rs. Two lakh) with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with 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 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. e. He shall surrender his passport. f. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer twice in a week. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 15. Any observations made herein 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. 16. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. 17. Copy dasti.