Cr.MP(M) No. 672 of 2010 15.07.2010 Present: Shri Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G., for the respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected his prayer for accepting the contention of the Assistant Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is released on bail he will threaten prosecution witnesses or otherwise influence them. This submission has been accepted without anything on record of the investigation or in the pleadings to remotely indicate that this is a possibility. The other ground for rejection is that the deceased had committed suicide within one and a half year of the marriage. In its order, the Court holds:- “8. The submission of the ld. P.P. for the State that if the applicant/accused is released on bail then he will threat and induce the prosecution witnesses and on this ground the bail application be rejected is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. I am of the view that if the applicant is released on bail at this stage he will induce or threat the prosecution witnesses which will adversely effect the investigation and trial of the case. I am of the view that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to release the applicant/accused on bail in view of the serious allegations of cruelty and abetment upon the deceased qua commission of suicide. In view of the above stated findings, the point No.1 accordingly answered in negative.” At present, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Threatening, overawing or inducing prosecution witnesses is a serious matter but cannot be adjudicated merely on submissions. This requires a foundation to be laid either in pleading or at least some circumstances must be brought on record of the case to establish this fact. I have seen the police report and do not find any such material to accept this contention. On the other aspect of the matter that the offence is heinous, all that needs be said on this proposition is that it cannot be used in this case as each case is to be decided on its individual facts. I find from the order that the learned Sessions Judge has not exercised jurisdiction vested in him under law and this is a fit case in which the petitioner may release on bail. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the challan has been filed in Court and the case has now been fixed for evidence of prosecution on 6.9.2010. In these circumstances, the petitioner is released on bail on the following conditions: (a) The petitioner shall not interfere with or tamper with the prosecution evidence or in any manner try to overawe or influence the prosecution witnesses; (b) The petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation; (c) He shall not abscond from the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala; (d) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of this order ; (e) The petitioner shall attend Court on all dates of the trial unless so exempted in accordance with law; (f) It is clarified that in the event of violation of any of the conditions imposed, the petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith without reference to this Court. It will be open to the prosecution to apply to the learned trial Court for imposition of any other or further condition on the petitioner. Dasti copy on usual terms. July 15, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge