ORDER : Bail petitioners, namely Mohini Patrwal and Rubel Patrwal, who are behind the bars since 18.6.2021, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.81 of 2021, dated 18.06.2021, registered at police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 302, 307, 452, 325, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC. 2. In terms of order dated 23.8.2021, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Ashwani Kumar has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 3. Perusal of status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 18.6.2021, complainant namely, Pritam Chand got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C alleging therein that on 18.6.2021, at about 8.00 AM while he was going towards house of Rakesh Kumar, he saw persons namely, Kartar Chand, Ravinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar, Robin, Mohini, Rubel, Asha, Nisha and Shankuntla going towards the house of Rakesh Kumar. Complainant alleged that all the above named persons were carrying Darat (sickle) and dandas (sticks) and they after having opened the Iron Gate, entered the veranda and started giving beatings to Uma Shankar and Rakesh Kumar. After having heard cries of aforesaid persons, persons namely, Satpal, Dharam Pal, Sheela Devi and Subhash Chand, also reached the spot and tried to rescue persons namely, Uma Shankar and Rakeh Kumar. Complainant alleged that all the persons namely, Kartar Chand, Ravinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar, Robin, Mohini, Rubel, Asha, Nisha and Shankuntla started giving beatings to Subhash Chand with Sickle and sticks and Rajinder Kumar gave blow of sickle on the head of Subhash Chand, as a consequence of which, he fell on the ground. Complainant also alleged that Kartar Chand, Ravinder Kumar, Rubel, Robin and Mohini were carrying sticks in their hands and person namely Ravinder Kumar gave blow of stick on the head of Rakesh Kumar, as result of which, he fell on the ground. He alleged that all the persons, named hereinabove, kept on hitting Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar with sticks and they left the places extending threats and hurling abuses. Complainant alleged that Ms. Sonali daughter of Subhash Chand picked Subhash Chand from the ground and he was bleeding. He alleged that all the persons, named hereinabove, kept on hitting Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar with sticks and they left the places extending threats and hurling abuses. Complainant alleged that Ms. Sonali daughter of Subhash Chand picked Subhash Chand from the ground and he was bleeding. In the aforesaid background, a case under Sections 307, 452, 147, 148,149, 504 and 506 of IPC, came to be registered against the persons named hereinabove. On account of injuries suffered by Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar they were initially taken to Dr. Rajinder Prashad Medical College, Tanda, but from there they both were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Since both the above named persons subsequently succumbed to their injuries, a case under Section 302 of IPC apart from the sections as detailed hereinabove came to be registered against the persons named in the FIR including the present bail petitioners. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Learned counsel representing the bail petitioners submits that bail petitioners, who apart from being women are college going girls have been falsely implicated in the case. While referring to the status report, he submits that as per own case of the investigating agency persons namely, Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar died on account of the injuries inflicted on their heads by persons namely Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar. Lastly, learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that since considerable time would be consumed in the conclusion of the trial and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars, who are otherwise college going girls. 5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any leniency. 5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any leniency. While referring to status report/record, learned Additional Advocate General submits that there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioners were not only present on the spot, rather they alongwith other accused had come prepared with an intention to kill persons namely Uma Shankar and Rakesh Kumar. Learned Additional Advocate General further contends that though postmortem report reveals that Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar died on account of injuries suffered by them on their head, but since four injuries were noticed on the head, it cannot be said that injuries on head were only caused by persons namely, Ravinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar, rather it has come in the evidence that all the persons named in the FIR including the present bail petitioners gave beatings to the deceased named hereinabove with sticks and as such, they do not deserve any lenience. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of them indulging in this crime again on account of their animosity with the family of the deceased as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge them on bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on 18.6.2021, persons namely, Kartar Chand, Ravinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar, Robin, Mohini, Rubel, Asha, Nisha and Shankuntla with an intention to cause injury to persons namely Uma Shankar and Rakesh Kumar entered their house while carrying darat(sickle) and sticks in their hands and thereafter they allegedly gave beatings to Uma Shankar and Rakesh Kumar. Since, person namely Subhash Chand tried to rescue Uma Shankar and Rakesh Kumar, allegedly the persons named hereinabove gave beatings to him as well as Rakesh Kumar. Since, person namely Subhash Chand tried to rescue Uma Shankar and Rakesh Kumar, allegedly the persons named hereinabove gave beatings to him as well as Rakesh Kumar. Status report/record reveals that though all the persons named in the FIR including the present bail petitioners were present on the spot, but deceased Subhash Chand suffered injury on his head on account of the blow of sickle given on his head by person namely Rajinder Kumar. Similarly, as per status report accused Ravinder Kumar gave blow of stick on the head of Rakesh Kumar. Since both the deceased persons Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar died on account of head injuries sustained by them on account of blow of darat and stick given on their head by Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, it would be too premature at this stage to conclude complicity, if any, of the bail petitioners in the case at hand. 7. No doubt, as per status report present bail petitioner, who are aged 22 and 23 years were also present on the spot and they had sticks in their hands, but since the specific case of the investigating agency is that persons namely Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar gave blow of sickle and stick on the head of Subhash and Rakesh Kumar coupled with the fact that both the above named persons died on account of the head injuries, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioners incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, especially for the reasons that both are young college going girls. Investigation reveals that alleged incident happened on account of some old animosity interse family of the deceased and persons named in the FIR that too on account of some passage. As per investigation, all the accused named in the FIR with a common intention to cause injury or to kill Uma Shankar and Rakesh Kumar had gone to their place, but such common intention interse, if any, of the accused that too to kill person is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Mere presence, if any, on the spot may not be sufficient to conclude/rule out complicity, if any, of the bail petitioners, especially in view of the specific assertion made in the status report that deceased namely Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar fell on the ground after having sustained head injuries on the account of the blow given on their head by persons namely, Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar by sickle and stick. 8. Though, case of the prosecution would be decided in totally of evidence collected on record by the investigating agency, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, there appears to be no reason to let the bail petitioners incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that both the bail petitioners apart from being women are college going girls and in case they are left to incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, their entire academic carrier would be ruined. Otherwise also Section 437 Cr.P.C empowers this Court to release sick, infirm or woman on bail, even if offences alleged to be committed are punishable with life and death. There is another aspect of the matter that all the members of one family are behind the bars, save and except two persons namely, Shankuntla and Kartar Chand, who have been already ordered to be enlarged on bail on account of their old age and as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioners for indefinite period during the trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioners being enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioners to stringent conditions, as has been fairly admitted by learned counsel representing the petitioners. 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 held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “2. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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. 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. 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. 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 Reinhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.” 10. In Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 49, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that 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. 11. Needless to say, the 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. 11. Needless to say, the 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 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. 12. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail i.e. prima facie case against the accused, nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of repeating of the offence by accused etc. 13. In view of above, bail petitioners have carved out a case for themselves and as such, present petitions are allowed and bail petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with following conditions: (a) They shall make themselves 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) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) They 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) They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 15. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 15. 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 these petitions alone. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.