ORDER : Sequel to order dated 22.7.2022, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail, in the event of arrest in FIR No. 121, dated 11.9.2021 under Ss. 306 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, respondent has filed status report and the Investigating Officer has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 2. Close scrutiny of record reveals that the complainant Ajay alleged that the marriage of his daughter Purnima was solemnized with present bail petitioner, who belongs to Bihar, on 10.7.2016. He alleged that since 2018, his daughter and present bail petitioner (his son-in-law) were residing at Barotiwala, District Solan. He alleged that subsequently, younger brother of present bail petitioner also came to Barotiwala and started living in the house of his deceased daughter Purnima. He alleged that on 10th August, Saurav and Priti brother and sister of present bail petitioner went back to Bihar, however, on 14.8.2021, his son-in-law (present bail petitioner) got his daughter Purnima admitted to hospital at Barotiwala, wherein it transpired that on 13.8.2021 Purnima had consumed 90 tablets Amludipine. Since, condition of the daughter of complainant became serious, she was referred to Government Medical College Chandigarh, where unfortunately she expired on 22.8.2021. Complainant alleged that on 24.8.2021 when he went to house of his daughter at Barotiwala, it transpired that present bail petitioner alongwith his brother Saurav, after having collected gold ornaments of his daughter and her laptop had already left for Bihar. He further alleged that subsequently, he came to know from person namely Bharat, who is friend of brother-in-law of his deceased daughter that the deceased was being tortured and mentally harassed by her husband (present bail petitioner) and other family members. On the basis of aforesaid statement made by complainant named herein above, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, he has prayed to make interim order dated 22.7.2022 absolute. 3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of investigation by bail petitioner in terms of order dated 22.7.2022, Mr. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, he has prayed to make interim order dated 22.7.2022 absolute. 3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of investigation by bail petitioner in terms of order dated 22.7.2022, Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Guleria further submits that since petitioner hails from Bihar, it may not be in the interests of justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event he may not only flee from justice but may also tamper with prosecution evidence. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused status report/record made available to this court, this court finds that on 14.8.2021, deceased Purnima was got admitted at Brooklyin Hospital at Jhar Majri and police after having taken permission from Medical Officer recorded her statement. As per record, deceased Purnima disclosed to the police that 5-6 days back, she had a miscarriage and as such, she was not keeping well. She further stated to the police that on account of depression, she inadvertently consumed medicines of blood pressure. At no point of time, deceased Purnima, who was alive till 22.8.2021, reported to the police that she was tortured/harassed mentally by the bail petitioner and his family members, or that she was compelled to consume 90 tablets of Amludipine, rather as has been taken note herein above, she stated voluntarily to the police before her death that she inadvertently consumed tablets of high blood pressure. FIR came to be lodged after one month of incident at the instance of father of deceased, who otherwise was immediately informed by present bail petitioner with regard to admission of the deceased Purnima in Hospital at Barotiwala. Complainant himself has stated that after death of his daughter, her last rites were performed at Chandigarh, but till then, he lodged no complaint against present bail petitioner and other family members, rather for the first time, complaint came to be made against bail petitioner and other persons, when allegedly, they fled away from Barotiwala to their native State, Bihar alongwith gold ornaments and laptop of the deceased. Save and except statement of the complainant, there is no cogent and convincing evidence adduced on record by prosecution suggestive of the fact that the deceased Purnima committed suicide after being subjected to cruelty by present bail petitioner and his family members, rather, as per own statement of deceased, unfortunately incident took place on account of inadvertent administration of wrong medicine that too, by the deceased herself. 5. Though, the case at hand is to be decided by learned court below in the totality of evidence led on record by Investigating Agency but having taken note of the above glaring aspects of the matter, this court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of bail petitioner, who has made himself available for investigation in terms of order dated 22.7.2022. It has been fairly admitted by learned Additional Advocate General that the bail petitioner is fully cooperating and nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by of learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of the bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 7. 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 been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 8. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 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. 9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 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. 10. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 11. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 11. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Order dated 22.7.2022 is made absolute subject to bail petitioner’s furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, besides the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself 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) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He 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) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 12. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.