JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 79/2017 lodged in Police Station Kulgam under Section 47, 379, 392, 354 RPC, on the grounds tailored therein. 2. Objections have been filed by respondents, resisting the application. 3. The facts in brief, emerging from case FIR No. 79/2017 police station Kulgam, are that on 31.05.2017, a written complaint was received by police station Kulgam, from one Mst. Parveena Akther wife of Tariq Ahmad Badar (daughter in law of Petitioner No. 4) resident of Ashmuji. It is alleged therein that on 26.05.2017, accused persons forcibly entered into the field of complainant and extracted the grass and attacked her and also took away her chain and pendulum. It is also alleged that accused person, namely, Mudasir Ahmad Badder, caught complainant and tore her clothes and attempted to commit rape on her. However, complainant made hue and cry due to which accused could not succeed. FIR No. 79/2017 and investigation was set into motion. During course of investigation, as is discernible from status report/objections, the Investigation Officer recorded statement of witnesses. Complainant's statement was also got recorded before Judicial Magistrate under Section 164-Cr.P.C. and upon said statement Section 354, 392, 447 RPC was made out against accused and as per the said statement Section 376, 511 RPC was also made out and Section 379 was dropped due to the deficit evidence. A case punishable under Sections 447, 392, 354, 376 and 511 RPC is said to have been made out against petitioner/accused no. 2 & 3, namely, Mudasir Ahmad Badder and Sabzar Ahmad Badder both sons of Ghulam Qadir Badder, and as regards petitioners 1 & 4, namely, Mst. Rafiya Jan daughter of Ghulam Qadir Badder and Mst. Zarifa wife of Ghulam Qadir Badder residents of Ashmuji Kulgam, a case under Section 447, 392 and 354 was made out. However, offence under Section 379 RPC was dropped against all the accused due to the deficit evidence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Rafiya Jan daughter of Ghulam Qadir Badder and Mst. Zarifa wife of Ghulam Qadir Badder residents of Ashmuji Kulgam, a case under Section 447, 392 and 354 was made out. However, offence under Section 379 RPC was dropped against all the accused due to the deficit evidence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner, to bolster the case set up by petitioners in application on hand for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest, has contended that a false and frivolous FIR has been lodged by complainant, who is wife of brother of petitioners 1 to 3 and that she has filed the complaint to wreak vengeance on petitioners to pressurise them so as to grab land of petitioner no. 2 located at District Udhampur. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioners that a similar complaint was filed by complainant against the petitioner no. 3 before SHO Udhampur, who in unequivocal terms stated that the complaint filed by complainant was absolutely false and baseless. He avers that complaint has been filed with an intention to wreak vengeance and, therefore, petitioners are entitled to concession of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for respondents has vehemently opposed application for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. It may not be out of place to mention here that while considering the bail application, what is required to be seen is prima facie involvement of a particular accused connecting him/her with commission of alleged offence and its gravity or seriousness. Chances of tampering with evidence can also be a very valid ground for rejecting or accepting a bail application and at the same time, the Court has also to ensure that there should not be any hindrance in free, fair and just trial. 8. The principles, which generally govern the grant of bail are relatable to following things : i. seriousness of the allegations; severity of punishment; the character of evidence on which the charge is proposed to be sustained; possibility of tampering and intimidating the witnesses; and chances of running away from the trial. ii. false implication of the accused; allegations levelled not believable; and wreaking vengeance for political or business reasons. 9. Before granting any concession of bail, above referred to principles are to be kept in mind while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction. ii. false implication of the accused; allegations levelled not believable; and wreaking vengeance for political or business reasons. 9. Before granting any concession of bail, above referred to principles are to be kept in mind while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction. It is also to be noted that at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, the Court has only to go into the limited question as to whether a prima facie case is established against the accused. It cannot go into the evidentiary value, credibility and reliability of the witnesses. However, while examining the bail plea of the accused, the circumstances, under which crime is alleged to have been committed, the character and behaviour of the accused person are also to be examined. Qua present case, during investigation, serious allegations punishable under Section 376 and 511 RPC have been made against accused, especially petitioner/accused no. 2 & 3 namely, Mudasir Ahmad Badder and Sabzar Ahmad Badder. 10. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for grant of bail are (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 charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vi) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (vii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. (Vide: State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 ; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Gurcharan Singh v. State Delhi Admn.), (2001) 4 SCC 280 ; and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 ]. 11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. 11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case, need not be undertaken, yet there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where accused is charged of having committed a serious and/or heinous offence. Any order, devoid of such reasons, would suffer from non-application of mind. 12. It is also necessary for the Court, granting bail, as has been indicated by the Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas, (2002) 2 SCC 598, to consider, inter alia, the following factors as well before granting bail; which are : (a) The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension for tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. 13. While having an overall view of the case in hand and keeping in view the above discourse, instant application for grant of anticipatory bail with regard to petitioners 2&3 (namely, Mudasir Ahmad and Sabzar Ahmad) is rejected. However, application qua petitioners 1&4, (namely, Mst. Rafiya and Mst. Zarifa) is allowed and in the event of their arrest in connection with case FIR No. 79/2017 lodged in Police Station Kulgam, petitioners 1&4 shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each, with two sureties of the like amount, on the following terms and conditions : i. that petitioners 1&4 shall make themselves available for investigation/ interrogation by a police officer/I.O./SHO concerned as and when required; ii. that petitioners 1&4 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that petitioners 1&4 shall not leave jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the Court; iv. that petitioners 1&4 shall not change their place of residence(s) until permitted. that petitioners 1&4 shall not leave jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the Court; iv. that petitioners 1&4 shall not change their place of residence(s) until permitted. v. that petitioners 1&4 shall also remain present on every date of hearing before the Trial Court after presentation of Challan. 14. With the above observations/directions, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of.