The main legal point established in the judgment is that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, an accused is believed to be innocent until found guilty, and the seriousness of the charges must be balanced with the right to liberty when considering bail applications.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The petitioner has sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No.153 of 2011 dated 5.11.2011, registered at Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 506 IPC.

2. It is not in dispute that out of the same incident, even the petitioner and his other co-accused have also lodged FIR on the same date being FIR No. 154 of 2011, which too, has been registered at Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, under Sections 341, 323, 302 and 34 IPC.

3. It is also not in dispute that all the accused in FIR No. 154 of 2011 have already been ordered to be released on bail, whereas it is the petitioner herein, who has not been released on bail only on the ground that he is charged with the serious offence and the matter is pending trial.

4. It is yet not in dispute that the petitioner is languishing in jail for the last more than six years, whereas the accused in the FIR lodged by the petitioner, as observed earlier, have already been granted bail.

5. Law must be administered even handedly, more particularly, when the offences with which the respective parties have been charged appear to be common and the lead thereof being punishable offence under Section 302 IPC i.e. murder.

6. As regards the trial against the petitioner, the same has virtually concluded but even then no decision in the said case can be rendered because the evidence in the counter case being FIR No. 154 of 2011 is yet in midway and is not likely to conclude shortly.

7. As observed earlier, the petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last more than six years despite his status being only that of an accused and not that of a convict. Therefore, in such circumstances, petitioner cannot be made to languish indefinitely in custody.

8. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2012) 13 JT 530, has clearly observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. The Hon''ble Supreme Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and that grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The detention in custody of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 12 of the Constitution.

9. Recently the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2018) 3 SCC 22, has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period especially when his guilt has yet not been proved. It is further held that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. It shall be apposite to reproduce the relevant observations as contained in paras 2 to 5 of the judgment, which read thus:

"2. There is no doubt that the grant or