The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1, 2 and 5 in Crime No.267/2024 of the Sreekaryam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered against the accused (6 in number) for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 17.03.2024

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 14.03.20247 at about 13:00 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their intention, to cause the murder of the defacto complainant, the first accused cut the defacto complainant with the sword and caused injuries to him on the rear portion of his neck. The second accused and the child in conflict with the law, also attacked the defacto complainant. The accused 4 and 5, reached the scene of the occurrence and enabled the accused to flee from the scene of occurrence. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri. Shajin, S. Hameed., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A FIR would substantiate that the petitioners were not named in the above crime. In fact, the crime has been registered only as a retaliatory method adopted by the defacto complainant, who is an accused in Crime No.1597/2023 of the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against him for committing a similar offence. The accused 1 and 2 are the Cws 6 and 7 in the crime. It is only due to wreak vengeance on them, the present crime has been registered. Moreover, a reading of the accident register- cum-would certificate would substantiate that the defacto complainant only suffered a lacerated wound and aberrations on his body. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 would not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 17.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents.

Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that there is a case registered against the defacto complainant as Crime No.1597/2023 of the Fort Police Station, wherein the accused 1 and 2 are the Cws 6 and

7. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate dated 14.03.2024, issued by the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, to show the nature of the injuries suffered by the defacto complainant.

6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that the first petitioner inflicted a cut injury on the rear portion of the defacto complainant, and he suffered an injury on the left hand muscle portion and his back. The other accused, along with a child in conflict with the law, enabled the accused to flee from the scene of occurrence.

7. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [2012 1 SCC 40], the2024:KER:11608 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 punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.

8. 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 h