JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 143/19, dated 14.11.2019, registered at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, under Sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. I have heard Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the bail petitioner and Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the respondent-State, through video conference and gone through the status report filed today by the respondent-State. 3. The gist of the prosecution case against the bail petitioner as it comes out from the status report is that on 14.11.2019, one Sh. Gulat Ram S/o Sh. Chet Ram, lodged a complaint in Police Station Rohru to the effect that:- (i). His daughter, Smt. Geeta Kashyap W/o Navtesh Kashyap, had left her father's home at around 8:30 am on 12.11.2019 for attending her duties in Sanjeevani Hospital/Clinic. (ii). She did not return home even by 6:30 pm, whereafter her father and brother enquired her whereabouts from her workplace. They were informed that Smt. Geeta Kashyap had left Sanjeevani Hospital/Clinic at around 5:00 pm on 12.11.2019 alongwith one of her colleague nurse. En route, she had expressed her intention to meet one Smt. Sheela and accordingly, midway, left the company of her colleague nurse. Calls made by the family members of Smt. Geeta Kashyap to Smt. Sheela did not yield any result. (iii). At around 5:00 am on 13.11.2019, complainant came to know that his daughter had consumed poison and her dead body was lying at Civil Hospital Sunni. (iv). The complainant further reported that the bail petitioner was with Smt. Geeta Kashyap at Civil Hospital Sunni and had tried to run away from the hospital. He suspected that it was the bail petitioner, who committed murder of his daughter as Smt. Geeta Kashyap had earlier lodged an FIR No. 113/19 against the bail petitioner on 22.09.2019 under Sections 382 and 356 IPC, alleging threatenings at his end for doing away not only her life, but also the lives of her family members. Therefore, the complainant alleged that his daughter was given poison by the bail petitioner. On the basis of above averments, instant FIR was registered against the bail petitioner. He was arrested on 14.11.2019 and is in custody ever since then. 4. As per the status report, following emerged during investigation:- (a). Therefore, the complainant alleged that his daughter was given poison by the bail petitioner. On the basis of above averments, instant FIR was registered against the bail petitioner. He was arrested on 14.11.2019 and is in custody ever since then. 4. As per the status report, following emerged during investigation:- (a). Both the bail petitioner and deceased used to work in Shanti Clinic two years prior to the incident. They were in love relationship with each other and had also established physical relations. However, due to some disputes, both of them had parted ways. Whereafter, the deceased started to work in Sanjeevani Hospital/Clinic. (b). On 22.09.2019, the bail petitioner came to Sanjeevani Hospital/Clinic, had heated arguments with Smt. Geeta Kashyap and snatched her mobile phone. Regarding this incident, FIR No. 113/19 was registered against him under Sections 356 and 382 of IPC at the behest of Smt. Geeta Kashyap. This FIR is presently under consideration in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rohru. (c). On 12.11.2019, Smt. Geeta Kashyap left Sanjeevani Hospital/Clinic alongwith her colleague Staff Nurse Ms. Arti in the vehicle belonging to brother of Ms. Arti. However, midway, she got down from the vehicle near Shanti Clinic Samala on the pretext of some work. (d). Near Shanti Clinic Samala, Smt. Geeta Kashyap accompanied the bail petitioner in his Maruti 800 Car, bearing No. HP10A-3286. Both of them went towards 'Anu'. She sat on the back seat of the car. Near Anu, she took out a bottle from her bag and gulped down some of its contents, immediately whereafter, the vehicle was stopped by the bail petitioner. He snatched the bottle from Smt. Geeta Kashyap and threw it away. The vehicle thereafter was driven towards Rampur. However, instead of taking Smt. Geeta Kashyap to Civil Hospital Rampur, petitioner carried her to Civil Hospital Sunni. On the way, he snatched her Jio Mobile Phone and other articles, viz. her shoes, socks and a stole and threw them outside the vehicle. The Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Sunni declared Smt. Geeta Kashyap as brought dead, whereafter, the bail petitioner kept the deceased's body in his vehicle and started towards IGMC, Shimla. However, after some time, he again brought her back to Civil Hospital Sunni. It has further been alleged that the bail petitioner had tried to run away from Civil Hospital Sunni. (e). However, after some time, he again brought her back to Civil Hospital Sunni. It has further been alleged that the bail petitioner had tried to run away from Civil Hospital Sunni. (e). The bail petitioner recorded his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, leading to recovery of the bottle containing insecticide poison and certain articles belonging to the deceased, viz. her shoes, socks and stole. Jio Phone belonging to the deceased thrown outside the vehicle has not been recovered. (f). The call details exchanged on the mobile phones belonging to the bail petitioner and the deceased revealed that they were in constant touch with each other on phone w.e.f. 06.11.2019 and used to converse a lot during night hours. (g). The State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, had reported that in the contents of parcels, Organophosphorus insecticide (Dichlorvos) was detected. The post-mortem report depicted Organophosphorus insecticide (Dichlorvos) poisoning as the cause of death. No struggle marks/signs were detected on the body of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner and deceased were earlier in a love relationship. The bail petitioner had neither murdered nor instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Rather he had himself taken Smt. Geeta Kashyap to hospital. His carrying Smt. Geeta Kashyap to Civil Hospital Sunni instead of alleged nearby hospital located at Rampur should not be weighed with suspicion and due credit should be given to his perplexity originated because of suddenness of the episode. Learned counsel for the bail petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is a local resident, has landed property in the area and he undertakes to abide by all the conditions, which may be imposed upon him in case of grant of bail, including not visiting the place of residence of the complainant. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the bail petitioner is an influential person. His conduct post taking of poison by Smt. Geeta Kashyap, does not deserve grant of bail. There is every likelihood that he will jump over the bail and will influence the witnesses. 6. It is not in dispute that investigation in the case is complete. Chargesheet has been filed on 12.02.2020. The bail petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 14.11.2019, i.e. for the last about six months. There is every likelihood that he will jump over the bail and will influence the witnesses. 6. It is not in dispute that investigation in the case is complete. Chargesheet has been filed on 12.02.2020. The bail petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 14.11.2019, i.e. for the last about six months. It is in the status report itself that the bail petitioner and Smt. Geeta Kashyap were in love relationship with each other about two years prior to the unfortunate incident. Because of some issues, they had parted ways. Even after lodging of FIR No. 113/19 on 22.09.2019, the bail petitioner and Smt. Geeta Kashyap were in touch with each other. As per their mobile call detail reports, they used to spend considerable time talking to each other during night hours w.e.f. 06.11.2019. It is also in the status report that Smt. Geeta Kashyap on her own had accompanied the bail petitioner in his vehicle on 12.11.2019. She had herself extracted the bottle containing poison from her own bag while sitting on the back seat of the vehicle. It was the bail petitioner, who stopped his vehicle, snatched the bottle from Smt. Geeta Kashyap and threw it outside. He carried Smt. Geeta Kashyap in his vehicle to Civil Hospital Sunni. At this stage, without going further into the evidence, for the purposes of the instant bail petition, some benefit of doubt in respect of the conduct of the bail petitioner, as argued by the learned counsel for the bail petitioner, deserves to be given to him, due to suddenness of the actions. Who threw which article outside the vehicle and why, is a matter of evidence to be led during trial. Nothing is to be recovered from the bail petitioner. Status report does not indicate any other criminal history of the bail petitioner. As already observed, chargesheet stands already filed and investigation is complete. The bail petitioner is permanent resident of Village Tandali, P.O. Karasa, Tehsil Rohm, District Shimla and therefore, his presence can be secured in the trial. He has already spent about six months in custody. In the present scenario, he cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period. Present petition is, therefore, allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. He has already spent about six months in custody. In the present scenario, he cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period. Present petition is, therefore, allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge/Additional District Judge, Shimla, subject to the following conditions:- (i). The petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii). The petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever. (iii). The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iv). The petitioner shall not visit the place of residence of the complainant till the recording of complainant's statement during trial. In case there is need for the petitioner to visit complainant's place, he shall seek permission of SHO concerned. (v). The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer. (vi). Petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law. (vii). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any. 7. In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Certified copy of this order be not insisted upon. Authenticated copy of the aforesaid order be supplied by the Secretary to the learned counsel for the parties.