The court emphasized that a lack of specific overt act against the accused and the completion of the investigation warranted his release on bail despite serious charges.

ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 ( for short ' BNSS ').

2. The petitioner herein is the 7^th accused in Crime No.739 of

2025 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, registered for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 333, 118(1), 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

3. The prosecution case is that, there have been cases and counter cases between the 1^st accused and deceased Santhosh. There was an incident in which the deceased had stabbed the 1^st accused. The 1^st accused along with accused Nos.2 to 9, entered into criminal conspiracy to cause the death of santhosh. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused Nos.2 to 7 trespassed into the residence of the deceased at 02.30 a.m. on 27.03.2025, and hacked him to death. Thus, the accused are allegedly committed the above offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. According to the counsel, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in this case on the basis of some surmises and conjunctures as well as on the basis of mistaken identity. According to the counsel, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 08.04.2025, and since then he has been under judicial custody. The learned counsel further urged that considering the long duration of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, some leniency has to be shown in the matter of bail. The learned counsel further submitted that no specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioner in the commission of the offences and therefore, the retention of the petitioner in the judicial custody is unwarranted and will tell much upon the family members of the petitioner, who are depending on him for their livelihood.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by highlighting the serious nature of the offences attributed to the petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is a history sheeter involved in three other criminal cases, and hence he deserves no leniency in the matter of bail.

7. The allegation that the accused trespassed into a house and committed the murder of a young man aged 45 years, cannot be viewed lightly. Anyhow, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 7^th accused in this case. As evident from the records, the main allegation against him is that it was he who facilitated the escape of the other accused after the commission of the offence. More precisely, it was in the innova car driven by the petitioner that the accused fled from the spot after perpetrating the offence. The question whether the accused was sharing a common intention with the other accused, who took part in the commission of the offence is a matter of evidence, which can be relegated to be considered at the time of trial. Anyhow, from the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is discernible that some of the accused against whom specific overt acts are alleged, have already been granted bail. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 08.04.2025 and since then, he has been under judicial custody. Evidently, the investigation in this case is already over, and the Final Report has been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. As the investigation in this case is completed, further judicial incarceration of the petitioner will serve no purpose. If at all, the prosecution is having any grievance regarding the repetition of criminal activities by the petitioner, the course open to them is to take acti