innocent. As per prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. he submits that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. As such, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. Complicity of an accused in a case based upon circumstantial evidence has to be decided in accordance with the parameters laid down by Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra reported AIR 1984 SC 1622 . However, none of the parameters provided in aforesaid judgement are satisfied against present applicant, upto this stage. The first informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence, therefore his testimony is only based upon suspicion. Upto this stage, no strong motive has emerged against applicant either. No recovery has been made from applicant either. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant has criminal history of two cases but the same have been sufficiently explained in paragraph 20 of the affidavit filed in support of present bail application. Applicant is in custody since 10.01.2023. As such, he has undergone more than six months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalyzed. Upto this stage, no such such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial. He therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
