JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the applicant who is the mother of the third accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in connection with FIR No.57(9)2020 registered under Section 302/34 IPC on the file of Nambol Police Station. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.9.2020 at 8.00 a.m., the complainant Moirangthem James Singh lodged a complaint stating that at around 6.00 a.m., his uncle Moirangthem Amuchou Singh informed him that his father Nilamani Singh was found dead at his farm house located at 200 metres from their house and it is suspected that he was murdered by some unknown persons. After registering the FIR, the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and based on the reliable information received from sources the petitioner, his brother and father were arrested from their house at 12.30 p.m. On preliminary interrogation, they admitted to have committed the crime charged against them and, accordingly, they were remanded to judicial custody. On further interrogation, the accused admitted that they had an argument and beaten up the deceased on the night of 10.9.2020 at around 9.00 p.m. Thus, the accused are liable to be punished as per law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in collusion with the complainant and there is no material on record to show that he has committed the alleged offence charged against him. He would submit that the petitioner is a patient of Ureteric Calcue and he has been under constant medical treatment. While the petitioner was in judicial custody, he was produced by the jail authority to JNIMS hospital for treatment where the Doctor states that facility for treating the petitioner was not available in JNIMS. Accordingly, the wife of the petitioner filed Bail Application No.13 of 2020 before this Court and this Court by the order dated 11.12.2020 was pleased to release the petitioner on bail for a period four months so as to enable him to get treatment of his ailment outside the jail. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that after enlarging the petitioner on bail, he got treatment at RIMS on various dates and still he is continuing the treatment. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that after enlarging the petitioner on bail, he got treatment at RIMS on various dates and still he is continuing the treatment. The learned counsel submitted that his brother and father who were also arrested were enlarged on bail on 22.10.2020 and 21.12.2020 respectively by the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur. 5. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is quite innocent of the charges levelled against him and has been wrongly implicated by the respondent police. That apart, he is the only bread winner of his family and now he is required to get treatment for stone case as well as depression as advised by the Doctor. He is ready to produce reliable persons as his surety and also furnish necessary bonds and shall obey all the conditions that may be imposed on the petitioner. Thus, a prayer is made to enlarge him on bail. 6. Opposing the petition, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner, his brother and father had beaten the deceased, who was much weaker than them without any mercy and in fact they laid their hands on the deceased even after he had fallen on the ground with an intention to kill him. He would submit that the post mortem examination report revealed that there was contusion and fracture of the skull over the left side of the head around the eye which caused the death of the deceased. Thus, it has been proved that the accused persons are liable to be punished. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is no need for granting bail to the petitioner, as he has got his treatment for more than 10 months and if really requires, the petitioner can be referred to the Board. Since the petitioner has been provided enough time to treat himself medically out of the jail, he cannot be granted bail on the ground of medical treatment. Further, the petitioner appears to have been taking undue advantage of the interim orders passed in Bail Application No.13 of 2020, which was already disposed of. Since the petitioner is suspected to have committed the heinous crime of murder and there is an apprehension that he may hamper and tamper the prosecution witnesses, if he is enlarged on bail. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the petition. 8. Since the petitioner is suspected to have committed the heinous crime of murder and there is an apprehension that he may hamper and tamper the prosecution witnesses, if he is enlarged on bail. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the petition. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 9. It appears that pending the present bail application, the wife of the petitioner filed MC (Bail Appln.) No.9 of 2021 in Bail Application No.13 of 2020 to extend the period of interim bail granted vide order dated 9.6.2021 in M.C. (Bail Appln.) No.5 of 2021 for another 3 months for further medical treatment. M.C. (Bail Appln.) No.9 of 2021 was also heard along with this bail application. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner and his father and brother were originally not named in the FIR and they have been implicated on interrogation. The petitioner sought bail mainly on the ground that the Doctors who treated him at RIMS advised to medical expulsive therapy at home and he was also having depression. According to the petitioner, there is no facility in the jail to treat him. Therefore, in order to get better treatment and to continue the treatment which he is now taking, the petitioner has to be granted regular bail. That apart, the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has to look after his family as he is the sole bread winner. 11. Though the prosecution resisted the bail application of the petitioner by contending that he can be treated from time to time even though he was detained in the judicial custody and he has been given enough time to treat himself medically out of the jail, nothing has been produced to establish that in jail such facility treat the petitioner is available and no Doctor certificate has been produced to show that the petitioner is not required any more treatment and he is medically fit. 12. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced medical records to show that he was suffering from Ulteric calculi (stone case) and when he was produced before the JNIMS Hospital, the Doctors diagnosed as a case of right Ulteric stone (12 mm) which has resulted in swollen kidney. However, the Doctors stated that the facility for extraction of calculi is not available at JNIMS. However, the Doctors stated that the facility for extraction of calculi is not available at JNIMS. Accordingly, after granting interim bail, the petitioner got treatment at RIMS. Therefore, the rejection of the bail application of the petitioner by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the claim of the petitioner is not supported by any medical report cannot be endorsed. 13. By way of an additional affidavit, the petitioner states that while giving statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant has not implicated the petitioner in the commission of the crime and, thus, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he can be enlarged on bail. The veracity of the complaint and the alleged 161 statement of the complainant cannot be gone into in the bail application. However, prima facie, this Court is of the view that on medical ground, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, as the Doctors who treated the petitioner at JNIMS opined that the condition of the petitioner will deteriorate if his illness is not treated urgently and also his right kidney failure is possible if left untreated. 14. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be penalized merely he has been arrayed as an accused. The circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain the accused for long and also without any evidence, the detention of the petitioner is against the constitutional right and liberty. 15. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.' 16. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. Though the occurrence is of the year 2020, till date no charge sheet has been filed. There is no proper explanation forthcoming from the prosecution in respect of non-completion of the investigation and non-filing of the charge sheet. Nnothing has been produced by the prosecution to show that the investigation completed and charge sheet has been filed. till date the charge-sheet has not been filed. Thus, the personal liberty of the petitioner affected. 17. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: '7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)' 18. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)' 18. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. Where the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. 19. As stated supra, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is to be proved by way of oral and documentary evidence and thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the merits of the allegation cannot be gone into. This Court, in the earlier paragraph of this order, only discussed that, prima facie, there is no clinching material to connect the petitioner into the alleged crime and, as such, the allegation levelled against the petitioner are to be proved only during trial and, that apart, the petitioner was not named in the FIR originally, however, later named. 20. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as 'reasonable, just, fair' so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 21. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has confirmed that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. 22. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegation is levelled against the petitioner, he cannot be denied bail. 23. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: '21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.' 24. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 25. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.' 26. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 27. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 28. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country. 29. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 30. 29. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 30. In the instant case, after passing the interim order dated 11.12.2020 in Bail Application No.13 of 2020, the petitioner was enlarged on bail and the said interim order was extended periodically by filing Miscellaneous Cases and the last application is M.C.No.9 of 2021, which was filed before the expiry of the interim order dated 9.6.2021 passed in MC (Bail Appln.) No.5 of 2021 and Bail Application No.13 of 2020 is stated to have been disposed of. It is stated that the interim order is still continuing after filing M.C.No.9 of 2021. The respondent/prosecution has not produced any contra proof in that regard. Since the petitioner has proved prima facie case for enlarging him on regular bail on medical ground with supporting documents, the extension of the interim order in M.C.No.9 of 2021 in Bail Application No.13 of 2020 is not required, however, he can be enlarged on regular bail as observed above. 31. During the course of argument, the petitioner had given an undertaking that he will not attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that on medical ground, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 32. Accordingly, Bail Application No.15 of 2021 is allowed and M.C. (Bail Appln.) No.9 of 2021 in Bail Application No.13 of 2020 is disposed of. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the FIR No.57(9)2020 registered under Section 302/34 IPC on the file of Nambol Police Station, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the FIR No.57(9)2020 registered under Section 302/34 IPC on the file of Nambol Police Station, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not leave the place of his residence without permission of the trial Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of his residence and the complete address of such place shall be furnished to the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur at the time of release. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police weekly once i.e. every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (iii) If the petitioner has passport, he shall also surrender the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur. (iv) The petitioner shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses. (v) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vi) The petitioner is directed to co-operate the investigation officer or the concerned Court, as the case may. (vii) It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (viii) Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail petition.