Judgment :- 1. A boy teased a girl, the elders on both sides fell out; days later, a violent confrontation occurred and a macabre scene in which four human beings lost their lives was the tragic finale. The police registered cases, took the accused into custody, collected evidence and are about to lay their charge-sheet into Court. Out of the total lives lost, only one died from the accuseds' group and three were from the opposite side. The petitioners before me are the five accused who failed to get bail before the Sessions Court and seek to be enlarged on bail by the High Court. 2. The facts relevant to the present proceedings may now be briefly stated. A general conspectus with an eye on the broad circumstances, and not a meticulous study of the evidence with a view to determine the guilt, concerns the Court at the stage of deciding whether pre-trial detention should be enforced on persons accused of offences. Therefore, I am not going into the details of the materials collected at the present stage although I have posted myself with the materials gathered during investigation as disclosed in the case diary and stated at the bar. Nor do I propose to dwell at length on the merits of the case as that may prejudice the trial of the case. 3. The venue of the bloody encounter is the M. C. road, about 5 kilometres from Kottarakkara town, and the time of the fight is around 3.45 p. m. on 318 1969. The background needs brief mention to understand the motivation and other aspects of the actual criminal occurrence. On 18 81969 a student, Mohana Kumari, (grand niece of one Krishna Pillai who was among those who lost their lives in the incident) travelled in a bus on her way back home along with another student Thankachan, son of one Yohannan (another gentleman who lost his life during the incident). The boy offered amatory insult to the girl who reported the matter to Krishna Pillai, apparently an important gentleman of the locality and an ex-President of the Panchayat: Mr. Krishna Pillai, it is stated, informed Yohannan and his son, Thankachan, that they should tender apologies so as to make amends for the injury. The boy did apologise, but his father did not. Krishna Pillai, it is stated, informed Yohannan and his son, Thankachan, that they should tender apologies so as to make amends for the injury. The boy did apologise, but his father did not. Trouble was, therefore, brewing and on 318 1969, the fateful day, some of the accused went over to the office of Yohannan, who is an agent of the Malayala Manorama at Injakkadu, and picked up a verbal quarrel, the intimidatory consequence being that Yohannan had to take shelter in the house of a driver called Thankachan. Even near Thankachan's house there was a hot passage of words but the interference and pacification by well-meaning people prevented a violent flare-up. The accused 1 to 3 went away and Yohannan also returned to his house. Altered about the incident, his relations and supporters, about 9 in number, moved to his house in a bullock-cart, conferred there, banded themselves together and shouted their way along the M. C. road. Krishna Pillai, the deceased, was sitting in a shop by the road-side and when he saw this animated collection of people he asked them to go away. The mood of the men was such that angry exchange of words ensued. Krishna Pillai asked them to leave the place, presumably in a tone of authority, but undoubtedly with the pacific intent of avoiding untoward incidents. Indeed, Krishna Pillai followed them for some distance and pushed Yohannan with his hand, asking his group to quit. By then, the situation hotted up, and Yohannan responded to the push by inflicting two cuts on Krishna Pillai at fatal spots with a chopper drawn from his waist. The injured fell dead. This sparked off a violent conflict because the accused, who were around the place, rushed towards Yohannan and party and then ensued a scene where knives, sword-sticks and choppers and belt were used resulting in four deaths and many injured. It is stated that when Krishna Pillai pushed Yohannan, the latter stabbed and killed the former. Yohannan did not stop with this, but attacked the 2nd accused, whereupon the third accused with the handle of a spade, struck the chopper down from the hand of Yohannan and seized it from the ground. The narration proceeds to state that the 1st accused beat Yohannan with a web belt and the 2nd accused stabbed him. Yohannan did not stop with this, but attacked the 2nd accused, whereupon the third accused with the handle of a spade, struck the chopper down from the hand of Yohannan and seized it from the ground. The narration proceeds to state that the 1st accused beat Yohannan with a web belt and the 2nd accused stabbed him. The further course of the occurrence led to George, of the Yohannan group, being stabbed by the 2nd accused with a dagger and John of the same party being daggered by the 1st accused. Yohannan also had inflicted a dagger-wound on the 1st accused. As a result of these incised wounds. John eventually died and the 1st accused and George sustained serious injuries. Another part of the occurrence deserves special mention. One Kunju Kunju, a figure in Yohannan's faction, was given a beating by the 5th accused with a belt. The 3rd and the 4th accused ran after him, the latter gave him a cut with a sword-stick and the former chased him into the adjacent field and gave him a cut on the head. Kunju Kunju succumbed to his injuries. 4. Although I have formed certain impressions about the occurrence, the aggressive roles, the preparedness for fight and cognate matters, I desist from discussing the merits for reasons I have already indicated earlier. All that I need say is that after hearing the long arguments addressed to me, I am disinclined to enlarge A3 and A4 on bail at the present stage and think it proper that Al, A2 and A5 be released from pre-trial detention on recognizances being produced. 5. Shri. Velayudhan Nair, counsel for the petitioners, has stated before me the correct law and 1 agree that counting dead bodies is not a guide to guilt or grant of bail. Pre-trial detention has a purpose and policy and, therefore, the issue of bail or jail must be decided on relevant criteria and not on emotionally appealing but legally impertinent circumstances. While deprivation of liberty is a sequel to conviction, antecedent incarceration amounts to punishment without trial, unless justified on some civilized principles bearing on the administration of justice. Pre-trial detention has a purpose and policy and, therefore, the issue of bail or jail must be decided on relevant criteria and not on emotionally appealing but legally impertinent circumstances. While deprivation of liberty is a sequel to conviction, antecedent incarceration amounts to punishment without trial, unless justified on some civilized principles bearing on the administration of justice. The infliction of humiliation, the cruelty of jail life and the prejudice suffered by a party in the conduct of his defence do irreparable damage to a man and it is poor comfort to be told that he would be acquitted ultimately if he were really innocent. That is why Courts have to take conscientious care not to be deflected by sentiment or scared by ghastliness but to be guided by the high principle that public justice shall not be thwarted and the course of the trial defeated or delayed by the accused person, be he high or low. This being the perspective, purpose and policy regarding bail, T must agree with counsel for the petitioners that the high death roll, very regrettable though, cannot stampede a Court into refusal of bail and the longer casualty list on the other side cannot weigh against the accused. The true principle that governs the tribunal's judicial discretion in these matters has been neatly set out by a Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court in Fazal Nawaz Jung v. State of Hyderabad (1952 Crl. Law Journal 873). (I extract the head note): "The discretionary power of the court to admit to bail is not arbitrary but is judicial and is governed by established principles. The object of the detention of the accused being to secure his appearance to abide the sentence of law, the principal enquiry is whether a recognisance would effect that end. In seeking an answer to this enquiry, Courts have considered the seriousness of the charge, the nature of the evidence, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the offences, and in some instances, the character, means and standing of the accused. The social position or status of the accused should never be taken into consideration when granting or rejecting an application for bail, nor should the Court express any opinion on evidence in an application for granting bail. The social position or status of the accused should never be taken into consideration when granting or rejecting an application for bail, nor should the Court express any opinion on evidence in an application for granting bail. While detention during trial is not in the nature of punishment, still it is meant to see that the accused does not prefer escape and exile to facing the trial. The severity of the sentence has to be borne in mind in considering the probabilities of escape, and Courts normally decline bail in cases of offences punishable with death or with transportation for life, since the severity of the punishment is itself such as to induce a person to escape the trial." Another ruling reported in Ram Chandra v. The State (1953 Crl. Law Journal 17) also lays down the correct law. I may extract the head-note from that report usefully: "The object of the detention of the accused is to secure his appearance to abide the sentence of law. That being so, except, where a statute specifically requires, the principle which should guide the court in the exercise of its discretion is the probability of the accused appearing to take the trial and not his supposed guilt or innocence. It h an error to suppose that considerations such as the nature of the charge, the nature of the evidence, the severity of the punishment awardable are by themselves material in deciding whether an accused person should or should not be admitted to bail. They are relevant because they affect the likelihood of the accused person's failing to appear for his trial. That likelihood is certainly affected by the gravity of the charge, the cogency of the evidence and the wealth of the accused which renders him more willing to bear the forfeiture of the bail-bond and also less willing to bear the ignonimity of a conviction. The fact that there is also a possibility of the accused tampering or attempting to tamper with the witnesses is also a factor that is relevant to the question of grant of bail." 6. The paramount consideration that prevails with the Court is to see that the accused does not outlaw himself or exile himself so as to make it difficult for justice being visited upon him. The paramount consideration that prevails with the Court is to see that the accused does not outlaw himself or exile himself so as to make it difficult for justice being visited upon him. The question of the gravity of the charge, the prima facie case that exists against him in regard to that charge, the possibility of tampering with witnesses or of absconding and many other factors gain meaning only in this context. Even, so, the seriousness of the charge against the accused and the availability of materials which, if believed, would bring home the guilt and the possibility of severe punishment following upon a conviction, are germane to the grant or refusal of bail. 7. Having considered the case in all its bearings, I direct that accused 1, 2 and 5 be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bonds of their own in a sum of Rs. 5000/-with two sureties in a like sum for each to the satisfaction of the Sub Magistrate, Kottarakkara (The same person may stand surety for more than one). I am aware that heavy bail may have overtones of inequality between the rich and the poor, being a financial tie to liberty, but in the circumstances of this case and having due regard to the financial position of the petitioners, the amount of bail is quite reasonable. I reject the petition for bail of the 3rd and the 4th accused. Of course, when the evidence has been taken in the committal Court a clearer picture would have emerged and the Court, when approached, may be in a better position to decide whether accused 3 and 4 are entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial.