ORDER : 1. The applicant herein is facing the charge of murder. 2. Jeethu, aged 29 years, was the wife of the applicant. They had married in the year 2012. Their relationship became strained and Jeethu found it difficult to live with him. About a month prior to the occurrence, she left the company of the applicant and starting residing with her parents. She then moved the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, with a petition seeking a decree of divorce. 3. It so happened that Jeethu was invited to attend a Kudumbasree meeting held in the home of one Thilakan. The applicant also lived in the same neighbourhood. Jeethu dragged her father along for protection and they went together in an autorickshaw. After the meeting, while the lady was returning back home, the applicant rushed towards her with a bottle of petrol and poured the inflammable liquid on to her body. She made an attempt to escape. However, the applicant caught up with the tired woman and then allegedly did the most heinous act. He poured petrol over her body and set her ablaze. The victim suffered serious burn injuries. The ghastly act was witnessed by her own father and several others. The injured was initially taken to the Chalakkudi Government Hospital from where she was referred to the Medical College. Her dying declaration was recorded by the learned Magistrate after ascertaining her competence to furnish such a declaration. Her life could not be saved and she was pronounced dead at 23.35 hrs on 30.4.2018. Based on the information furnished by the father of the deceased, Crime No.287 of 2018 was registered against the applicant at the Pudukkad Police Station under Section 302 of the IPC. 4. Appearing for the applicant, Sri.M.Revikrishnan, the learned counsel, submitted that the applicant herein was arrested on 3.5.2018 and he has been in custody since then. He was given in police custody and after completion of investigation, the final report has been laid before the court having jurisdiction. The learned counsel contended that except where there are circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice by interfering with the evidence or influencing witnesses, it is the duty of the court to enlarge the accused on bail. The learned counsel took pains to remind this Court of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. Vs. The learned counsel took pains to remind this Court of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1978 SC 429 ) and he fervently contended that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. It was urged that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Referring to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh V State of Uttar Pradesh [ 2018 (3) SCC 22 ] it was submitted that though the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge in the facts and circumstances of each case, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately without being carried away by the brutality of the allegations, submits the learned counsel. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has placed before me the case diary and submitted that the act of murder was committed by the applicant in broad day light and in an extremely deviant manner, in the presence of the father of the deceased. The dying declaration of the injured was recorded by the learned Magistrate and she has narrated the manner and mode in which the applicant had acted. On the next day itself, the young lady succumbed to the injuries. It is submitted that the applicant had fled to Bombay immediately after the incident and he was arrested from the said city on 3.5.2018. The accused Nos. 2 to 4 had aided the accused to flee from the State. It is submitted that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts and the mere fact that the applicant has been in custody for about 90 days or that the final report has been laid cannot be regarded as compelling factors in a case of instant nature. The reasonable prospects of the applicant influencing the eye witnesses and subverting the prosecution case are also highlighted by the learned Public Prosecutor to counter the prayer advanced by the learned counsel. 6. The reasonable prospects of the applicant influencing the eye witnesses and subverting the prosecution case are also highlighted by the learned Public Prosecutor to counter the prayer advanced by the learned counsel. 6. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have intensely scrutinized the final report. It is trite that a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. The courts will have to be cautious as the party should not have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. It is also equally settled that among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail and finally (ix) the larger interest of the public or the State (See: State of U.P through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi [ (2005) 8 SCC 21 ] ; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr. [ (2001) 4 SCC 280 ]; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. [ (2002) 3 SCC 598 ]; Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. [ 2012 (10) SCALE 237 ]. 7. In the case on hand, the murder was committed in broad day light and in the presence of numerous witnesses. The deceased was chased for quite a distance and she was set on fire after drenching her with petrol. Several eye witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and they all reside near to the house of the accused. In that view of the matter, the fear expressed by the prosecution that the applicant would use his liberty to subvert justice and tamper with the evidence cannot be nonchalantly brushed aside at this stage. 8. Several eye witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and they all reside near to the house of the accused. In that view of the matter, the fear expressed by the prosecution that the applicant would use his liberty to subvert justice and tamper with the evidence cannot be nonchalantly brushed aside at this stage. 8. I am not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel that detention in custody of the applicant herein for an indefinite period would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. As held by the Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [ AIR 2002 (SC) 1475 ], while liberty of an individual is precious and there should always be an all round effort on the part of courts to protect such liberties of individuals, but this protection can be made available to the deserving ones only. Protection cannot be termed to be absolute but stand qualified depending upon the exigencies of the situation. Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interest of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost her life and also the collective interest of the community in order to ensure that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. 9. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and Anr. [JT 2012 (9) SC 155], the Apex Court while dealing with individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has opined as under: It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires. 19. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires. 19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, and no one would like to barter it for all the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part of court to scan and scrutinize, though briefly, as regards the prima facie case, the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the potentiality of the accused to tamper with the evidence apart from other aspects before the restriction on liberty is lifted on imposition of certain conditions.” 10. The allegations are serious and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution appears to be genuine. I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. This application will stand dismissed.