ORDER : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Sequel to order dated 10.7.2020, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of her arrest in case FIR No. 45/20, dated 6.7.2020, under Section 306 of IPC, registered at P.S. Kunihar, District Solan, H.P., respondent-State has filed status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. 2. Perusal of record/status report reveals that on 6.7.2020, complainant Sita Ram, got his statement recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C. at P.S. Kunihar, District Solan, alleging therein that his son Kamal Kishore has committed suicide on account of constant maltreatment and harassment caused by his wife Pariksha, mother-in-law (present bail petitioner), father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. Besides above, police also recovered one note book containing suicide note at page 19 allegedly written by the deceased prior to committing suicide. In suicide note, deceased while saying sorry to his father has written that his wife, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, declared him "Sharabi" and always suppressed/dominated him and as such, he is ending his life. In aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner as well as other persons named in the suicide note. 3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation qua the present bail petitioner contends that though at this stage, nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer for grant of bail may be rejected outrightly. Mr. Bhatnagar, while referring to the status report further contends that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the Investigating Agency suggestive of the fact that present bail petitioner being mother-in-law of deceased used to interfere unnecessarily in the relationship of the deceased and his wife Pariksha, as a consequence of which, deceased was under great mental pressure. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that investigation qua the bail petitioner is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered from her. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that investigation qua the bail petitioner is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered from her. Specific allegation, if any, against the present bail petitioner is that she used to unnecessarily interfere in the relationship of the deceased and his wife Pariksha, as a result of which, deceased was under great mental pressure. Besides above, another allegation against present bail petitioner is that she along with other co-accused used to call deceased "Sharabi". No doubt, material available on record suggests that present bail petitioner, who happens to be mother-in-law of the deceased used to visit the house of her daughter frequently, but there is no material worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that during her stay in the house of deceased, present bail petitioner used to harass the deceased. It has come in the investigation that deceased used to drink liquor in excess, as a consequence of which, his mental health was not good. Whether merely calling somebody "Sharabi" especially, to that person, who drinks a lot, is sufficient to induce person to commit suicide is a question, which needs to be determined/decided in the totality of evidence collected on record by the Investigating Agency. Save and except statement of complainant, who happens to be father of the deceased, none of the independent witnesses, if any, associated from the locality have stated something specific with regard to mental harassment, if any, caused by the present bail petitioner to the deceased and as such, this Court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner, who has otherwise made herself available for investigation in terms of order dated 10.7.2020, passed by this Court. Leaving everything aside, it is own case of the Investigating Agency that nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, meaning thereby, that in the event of dismissal of the instant bail petition having been filed by the petitioner, she would be sent to the judicial custody. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General with regard to petitioner's fleeing from justice in the event of her being enlarged on bail, can be best met by putting him to stringent conditions, as has been fairly admitted by the learned counsel representing the bail petitioner. 5. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General with regard to petitioner's fleeing from justice in the event of her being enlarged on bail, can be best met by putting him to stringent conditions, as has been fairly admitted by the learned counsel representing the bail petitioner. 5. Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the court below on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by the Investigating Agency, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period. Leaving everything aside, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, his freedom cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period during trial. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly observed/held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved in accordance with law. 6. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 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 has 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. 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. 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. 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 436-A 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-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 7. 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. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 40: AIR 2012 SC 830 ); 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 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." 9. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta v. CBI : (2017) 5 SCC 218 : ( AIR 2017 SC 769 ), The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that 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 found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat 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 a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted." 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another: (2010) 14 SCC 496 : ( AIR 2011 SC 274 ), 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. 11. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 10.7.2020, passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to the following conditions; a. She shall make herself 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. She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. She 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. She shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 12. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses her liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon her, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 13. Any observations made hereinabove 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. The bail petition stands accordingly disposed of. Dasti on usual terms.