The legal principles of presumption of innocence, grant of bail as a rule, and infringement of the right to life under Article 21 influenced the court's decision to allow the bail application.

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.238/2024 of the Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 12.2.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 11.2.2024 at around 19.50 hours, the accused in prosecution of their common intention to murder the de facto complainant (injured), formed an unlawful assembly, attacked the injured with a chopper and caused grievous injuries to him. When the BA No.1660 of 2024 injured's friend named, Jayesh attempted to intervene in the matter, the accused manhandled him also. The accused had also criminally intimidated the injured and uttered obscene words. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Sreeraj M.D, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sec.307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. A reading of the wound certificate would establish that the injured had not suffered any serious injuries as alleged by the prosecution. Notwithstanding the above contentions, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.2.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, recovery has been effected and the BA No.1660 of 2024 petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime. He made available the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured to substantiate the fact that the injured had suffered a right and left forearm contusion and laceration.

He submitted that the investigation is still in progress.

Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the petitioner been in judicial custody since 12.2.2024 and that recovery has been effected.

6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the accused in prosecution of their common intention, assaulted the injured and caused grievous injuries.

7. On an evaluation of the casualty out patient ticket dated 11.2.2024 issued by the District Hospital, Kollam, it can BA No.1660 of 2024 be seen that the injured had suffered a right forearm contusion and left forearm laceration of 2 x 0.3 x 0.1 cm. 8. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.

9. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner.

BA No.1660 of 2024 10. Subsequently, in State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of t