A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application seeking bail under section 439 of the Cr. P. C. in Crime No. 595/92 registered at P. S. Malharganj, Indore pertaining to offences punishable under section 302/34 of the IPC. ( 2 ) THE applicant aged 20 years, has been in custody since 30. 10. 1992. ( 3 ) SIMILAR bail plea was rejected by the Court below on 7. 1. 1993 in MJC No. 3353192 on the linchpin of one affidavit construed as emitting a Tpossibility that the applicant, if free, may injure the cause of public justice and thus misuse the liberty. Two factors luculently emerge from this as under:a) The Court below declined to demolish the judicial custody on the objection from private party. b) The State, real prosecutor and responsible, for maintenance of law and order, offered no such oppugnation or ground for saying monosyllabic-No to the plea of bail. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the applicant, though allegedly enmeshed in an embroglio, is under 21 years of age, 20 years to be precise. The bail is strenously opposed on two grounds: (1) The applicant is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence and would thereby thwart the course of justice. (2) The applicant has load of bad antecedents as he is facing other criminal cases. ( 5 ) FINALLY, it is argued that in the event of grant of bail, the applicant be asked to stay away from this District till the pendency of the criminal case or alternatively he should be directed to attend the Police Station at reasonable time and intervals. ( 6 ) AS regards the objection No. 2, I do not find that this ground was pressed in the Court below as emerges from the order. Moreover, the applicant is said to be on bail in those cases and there is no material suggesting misuse of liberty in those cases. The objection No. 2 therefore, lacks substance. It is objection No. 1 which is said to be substantial and which must engage attention. ( 7 ) THE principal question is whether the plea of bail merited mortality on the ground of poignant protest summing from a private person? ( 8 ) IN matter of grant of bail, the most relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted? ( 7 ) THE principal question is whether the plea of bail merited mortality on the ground of poignant protest summing from a private person? ( 8 ) IN matter of grant of bail, the most relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted? The objector has this one in mind. The issue so oscillating is whether it would be salubrious to sanction the continuation of custody or restore liberty with suitable conditions to eliminate the chance of polluting the process of justice as apprehended. ( 9 ) IN Gudikantis case1, the Apex Court, fixing focus on the concept of bail or jail at the pretrial stage, illumined the blurred area in the following words:the significance and sweep of Article 21 of the Constitution make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even handed and geared to the goals of community good and state necessity spelt out in Article 19. The considerations set out as criteria are germane to the above Constitutional proposition. Reasonableness postulates an intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected. ( 10 ) LIBERTY must, as it does, occupy the place of pride. Yet it must suffer an eclipse when personal freedom turns a menace. The court is obligated to draw the balance between the competing claims of individual and society. Early Warren, expressed himself in the following words- Our system faces no theoretical dilemma but a single continuous problem; how to apply to the never-changing conditions the never-changing principles of freedom. (Emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) LORD Denning, highlighted the role of a judge as under- My root belief is that proper role of a Judge is to do justice between the parties before him. ( 12 ) ENOUGH languishment in jail, hence anaesthetize by bail the incarceration, suffered as an under trial prisoner, urged the applicant with usual precative plea. Enough is not enough in that the witnesses on freedom of the applicant would feel unfree to depose In Court, hence allow the status quo about custody- Claimed the objector with vivid vehemence. The State offered no particular comments. In the face of such a discordant sound, a bit deeper probe seemed essential. Enough is not enough in that the witnesses on freedom of the applicant would feel unfree to depose In Court, hence allow the status quo about custody- Claimed the objector with vivid vehemence. The State offered no particular comments. In the face of such a discordant sound, a bit deeper probe seemed essential. ( 13 ) IN Bhagirath Singh jadeja's, case the victim suffered as many as 11 injuries caused by sharp- edged instrument like knife. Prima facie the enormity of evil, put on trial, was evidently established. Yet law and logic combined together in harmony, rather than antinomy to instruct as under: But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment. ( 14 ) AS regards apprehension voiced by the objector, it may be noted that mere apprehension of creating terror or on tempering with evidence is not sufficient ground to refuse bail. Maksood Khan v. State of M. P. , Attempt, cogent and convincing, in the past should be indicated in clear terms. Yet die voice must be heard in proper tone and tune. ( 15 ) THE stage is now set to turn, albeit briefly, to facts of the case on hand. The allegation is that the applicant and co-accused wielded knives to inflict injuries at night. The facts, hard as they are, speak for themselves. In sum the charge is serious, so is the opposition to bail. Yet the lone factor of AGE tilts the balance in favour of the applicant. This factor becomes relevant even at sentencing stage, what to say of pretrial release. It seems to be imprudent and inept to lengthen the sojourn in company of hardened criminals in jail at this stage in view of the tender age. It 1s urged that the hope of reformation and reclamation in the event of eventual impeccability, if that be the ultimate, verdict, should be seen alive and not be permitted to perish prematurely at the infancy of the accusation and that the tenderness of the age must far out-weigh the seriousness of the crime in question as also the objection resting on apprehension which may prove to be inutile and futile but not before damage, beyond repair, to the applicant, in the event of refusal of bail, is caused. ( 16 ) I have given my anxious considerations to all aspects in their entirety. It is also noticed that the investigator himself saw no such vulnerable ness or risk as is evident by the absence of steps to have the statements u/s 164 Cr. P. C. recorded. ( 17 ) ELABORATE documentation of the merits of the matter in such proceedings is neither necessary, nor desirable. The law laid down in Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakaran Rajaram and others is quite instructive and mandates brevity. ( 18 ) YET I have seen this order to grow in size so that the objector may know that his objections received serious attention and succeeded in securing imposition of bit onerous terms in the process. ( 19 ) THE position, nearing conclusion, is thus, clear. The age plays the vital role and brings the applicant out for the time being and the objection begets conditions so as to serve the bi-focal interests of justice. This is the issue of prime consideration. ( 20 ) EX consequenti, the application is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 (Twenty thousand) with two sureties in the. sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 (ten thousand) each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed for this purpose by the Court concerned. In his bail-bond, the applicant shall also undertake additionally to abide by the following constraints:a) The applicant shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the pendency of the aforesaid trial. b) The applicant shall not thwart public justice; shall not interfere in any manner in course of justice; shall not tamper with the evidence; shall not terrorise witnesses; shall not dissuade witnesses from disclosure of facts to the Court. c) The applicant shall report to the Police Station Malharganj, Indore every Sunday before 12 P. M. till the examination of eyewitnesses in the Court or till the expiry of six months from today whichever event may occur earlier in point of time. ( 21 ) IT is however, made clear that the prosecution shall have freedom to apply in the trial Court and seek prompt revocation of this order in case the applicant was found indulging in infringement of any of the aforesaid conditions. ( 21 ) IT is however, made clear that the prosecution shall have freedom to apply in the trial Court and seek prompt revocation of this order in case the applicant was found indulging in infringement of any of the aforesaid conditions. Certified copy of this order be supplied today on payment of usual charges. Application allo wed. .