credibility and the aspect whether the case falls under any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC and it would be punishable under section 304 (Part II) IPC will be considered by the learned Trial Court and any observation at this stage could prejudice the case of either the prosecution or the defence. However, the circumstances discussed above definitely tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner for grant of bail considering his long incarceration. 29. At this stage there is presumption of innocence in favour of the petitioner and he has already spent 5 years 5 months in custody. It would be indeed be a travesty of justice in case the Trial Court finds the petitioner guilty of an offence for which there is no minimum sentence prescribed and it proposes to impose the punishment lesser than the period for which the petitioner/accused has already been incarcerated. 30. There are other aspects that cannot be overlooked. It has come on record in the form of FSL report that no DNA profile could be generated from the knife recovered at the instance of the petitioner. There is also some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery was made from an open park which is visited by general public, which raises doubt about the recovery. Further, it is on record that no blood stains or finger prints could be lifted from the place of incident. 31. The testimonies of the public witnesses including that of the complainant have already been recorded, therefore, there is no possibility of petitioner influencing the public witnesses in the event he is enlarged on bail. The co-accused Himanshu, who happens to be the real brother of the petitioner was enlarged on interim bail and he never misused the liberty so granted to him. Besides that, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, the petitioner does not seem to be a flight risk. Nevertheless
