ORDER : Petitioner is an accused in case registered vide FIR No. 101 of 2021, dated 14.08.2021, at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 34 IPC. Petitioner is in custody since 16.08.2021. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of petition are that on 14.08.2021 police reached the ESI Hospital, Sansarpur Terrace on being informed that an injured person named Shakti Chand S/o Sh. Bidhi Chand (now deceased), had been brought for treatment. His statement was recorded to the effect that he had two other brothers and his father had died. The land was joint between all the three brothers, but they were in possession of their respective shares on the basis of private arrangement. He stated that on 14.08.2021 he alongwith his younger brother Rajesh Kumar, labourer Ashwani Kumar and mason Paramjeet were busy in construction of a latrine on the land which was in his possession, the bail petitioner alongwith his son Keshav Jariyal threatened him to stop the work. Petitioner pushed the injured (now deceased), as a result of which, he received injury on his back. In the meantime, the son of petitioner threw a brick towards the injured and hit his head. The injured was accordingly brought to the hospital, who later succumbed to the injuries. The investigation was completed. As per medical opinion, the cause of death was shock due to ante-mortem head injury. 3. The petitioner has made a prayer for grant of bail on the ground that he is innocent and has been implicated falsely. The petitioner has already been in prolonged custody and no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping him in custody till the conclusion of trial. It is stated that petitioner is sole bread earner of the family. He is local resident of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him. 4. The bail application has been opposed only on the ground that in case of release of petitioner on bail, he may influence the prosecution witnesses. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and also have gone through the records. 6. 4. The bail application has been opposed only on the ground that in case of release of petitioner on bail, he may influence the prosecution witnesses. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and also have gone through the records. 6. Earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court with bail application being Cr.MP(M) No.41 of 2022, but the same was withdrawn on 24.03.2022, with liberty to file afresh. At that stage, the trial had not begun. Therefore, there is a change in circumstances and the successive bail petition is maintainable. 7. The allegations against the petitioner are of commission of offence under Sections 302, 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The facts as place on record do not prima-facie suggest any pre-meditated assault on the deceased with the intent to kill him. It appears to be a case where the dispute arose on the spur of the moment. The overt act attributed to the petitioner is that he pushed his brother (deceased). The fatal injury was caused by the son of petitioner, who also was accompanying the petitioner. The deceased did not die instantaneously after receiving the injury. There is nothing on record to suggest that even after causing injury to the deceased, petitioner or his co-accused had continued their assault. In fact, it has been suggested that they had run away from the spot. 8. Though this Court while deciding bail application is not to minutely scan the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, but the same can always be looked into for prima-facie assessment as to seriousness and gravity of allegations. The observation made hereinabove are only for such specific purpose. 9. In the given circumstances of the case, the requisite intent or knowledge for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC is yet to be proved. The facts of the case do not warrant the prolonged custody of petitioner till final adjudication, as no fruitful purpose shall be served thereby. Even otherwise, the pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. 10. The son of the petitioner, who is co-accused is a juvenile in conflict with law has already been released. 11. The only concern of the Court at this stage is to facilitate the fair and expeditious trial. For such purpose, appropriate conditions can be imposed against the petitioner. 12. Even otherwise, the pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. 10. The son of the petitioner, who is co-accused is a juvenile in conflict with law has already been released. 11. The only concern of the Court at this stage is to facilitate the fair and expeditious trial. For such purpose, appropriate conditions can be imposed against the petitioner. 12. The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Bilwan Ghatti, Post Office Ghati, Tehsil Jaswan, District Kangra, H.P. and there is no apprehension of petitioner absconding or fleeing from the course of justice. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 101 of 2021, dated 14.08.2021, registered at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 34 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. This order is, however, subject to following conditions: - (i) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) Petitioner shall not leave India without leave of the trial Court. (iii) Petitioner shall not delay the trial of the case and shall regularly attend the hearings, except in circumstances beyond his control. (iv) Upon his re-indulging in criminal activities, it shall be open to the respondent, to move this Court for cancellation of bail. 14. Any observation made in this order 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 observation made hereinabove.