I was studying histograms and normal distribution. As far as I know, they are two different tools used for calculating probability and statistics. More specifically they help to visualize and it is an effective way to summarize a large amount of data.
The main difference is in their math and the way they visualize. To calculate the probability of an event from a histogram, we calculate it in a normal arithmetic way. But, if we want to calculate probability from normal distribution we need calculus and geometry.
I am adding screenshots so that everyone could understand what I meant above.

Could anyone help me to know their use cases? In which cases it will be better to use histograms and normal distribution? Is there any condition I should check before deciding which one I should use whether it is histogram or normal distribution?
Histogram of a small sample.
Suppose you have a population of high school women, you sample 100 womn at random from the population, measure their heights (to the nearest inch) and make a histogram of these 100 heights.
Using R statistical software, I can emulate this process to get fictitious data for an example. The vector
xcontains the heights in inches of 100 women.From the following summary I can see that the tallest woman was 71" tall and the shortest was 56" tall. Also, I can see that that the average height is $\bar X = 63.36"$
The histogram below has labels atop its bars, indicating how many women are represented in each bar. So, I can say that $8+10+1 = 19$ of the $100$ women are taller than 66". [In this style of histogram the intervals contain the top boundary, but not the bottom boundary.] From this I might guess that roughly $0.19 = 19\%$ of the women in the -population_ are taller than 66". But this is only a rough estimate based on a sample of 100. Perhaps it is more appropriate to give a 95% confidence interval for the probability as $(0.113, 0.267)$ or $0.19 \pm 0.077.$
Exact distribution of population.
By contrast, if I am told that the population distribution of such female student heights is $\mathsf{Norm}(\mu = 64, \sigma=3.5).$ then I have more knowledge about the population than I can deduce form a sample of $100$ women.
Then I can find a z-score and use printed normal CDF tables to find the exact proportion of high school women in the population weighing more than 66". For the best result, I should use $66.5$ because women taller than that will be rounded to 67" or more. (This adjustment is called the 'continuity correction'.)
Then $Z = \frac{66.5 - 64}{3.5} = 0.714.$ And from the printed table you get approximately the proportion $0.238.$ [Usually, using printed tables involves some rounding, with a small loss of accuracy.] You can use the normal CDF function
pnormin R, to get the slightly more accurate value $0.2376.$Of course, the answer $0.238$ from the exact population distribution is much better than the approximate answer $0.19\pm 0.077$ estimated from a sample of only 100 women. But you try to do your best with the information you have.
The probability $0.238$ is the area under the density curve to the right of the vertical line.
Note: The information in the line of R code
would never be known in a practical situation. This was used only to make a fictitious sample of 100. [I don't happen have a huge population of high school women in my office to use for taking the sample.]