ORDER : Petitioner is accused in case FIR No. 59 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. under Section 120B, 420, 465, 467, 568 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that a false case has been foisted against her and other co- accused by the complainant with ulterior motives. As per petitioner, complainant is brother-in-law (sister’s husband) of husband of petitioner, who had borrowed money from the complainant. Final settlement was entered into on 20.07.2020 between petitioner and her husband on one side and complainant on the other. The settlement was finalized in presence of Atma Ram, a brother of the husband of petitioner. The complainant had acknowledged the receipt of entire balance amount due from the petitioner and her husband in presence of witnesses Hari Ram and Balbir Singh. Receipt was executed which was scribed by Atma Ram and was duly signed by the complainant in presence of aforesaid witnesses. Complainant was in possession of certain blank cheques signed by petitioner and her husband, which he had promised not to use after final settlement. The complainant, however, used these cheques and filed complaints against the petitioner and her husband under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant also filed complaints with police by denying his signatures on receipt dated 20.07.2020. Police on inquiry found the dispute between the parties having civil overture. Complainant finally filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shillai, seeking direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of case. The case was accordingly registered. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that investigation has already been completed. Nothing is required to be recovered from the petitioner. She is permanent resident of Village Sidhoti, PO Panog, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. She has already joined the investigation as and when required. In case she is granted pre-arrest bail, she shall not interfere in investigation in any manner and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed. 3. In response, the status report has been filed. In case she is granted pre-arrest bail, she shall not interfere in investigation in any manner and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed. 3. In response, the status report has been filed. It is revealed that dispute has been raised by the complainant with respect to genuineness of the receipt dated 20.07.2020 claimed by the petitioner and her husband to have been executed by the complainant. It is stated that all the accused including bail petitioner have associated themselves in investigation as and when required. During investigation, the police is also stated to have come across the facts as narrated in the bail petition. The police has already received the opinion of GEQD in respect of receipt dated 20.7.2020. It is alleged that some over writing is there, which is being further investigated. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent- State and have also gone through the record carefully. 5. The dispute is with respect to the discharge of outstanding liability of the petitioner and his wife in favour of complainant. Whereas on one hand the said liability is stated to have been completely discharged vide writing/receipt dated 20.07.2020, on the other the complainant has specifically denied having received the amount from the petitioner and her husband, as mentioned in the receipt dated 20.07.2020. The complainant has denied execution of such receipt and has categorically denied his signature thereon. 6. The police has already undertaken entire preliminary investigation. The questioned document i.e. receipt dated 20.07.2020 had been sent for opinion of GEQD and the report has been received. The allegations and counter allegations are to be proved during the trial of the case. Nothing is left to be recovered from the bail petitioner. The police has not asked for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a case where the custodial interrogation may be necessary. No fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the bail petitioner in custody. Pre-trial incarceration is not the Rule. 7. The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Sidhoti, PO Panog, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P and there is no likelihood of her fleeing from the course of justice. No fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the bail petitioner in custody. Pre-trial incarceration is not the Rule. 7. The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Sidhoti, PO Panog, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P and there is no likelihood of her fleeing from the course of justice. There is no apparent apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is not a case of the respondent that in case of release of petitioner on bail, the trial of the case shall be adversely affected. 8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with case FIR No. 59 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. under Section 120B, 420, 465, 467, 568 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, she shall be released on bail, subject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. This order shall be subject to the following conditions:- i) That the petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required. ii) That the petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police. iii) That the petitioner shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. iv) That the petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 9. Any observations made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made herein above.