Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore there is no eye witness of the occurrence, the complicity of an accused is a case based on circumstantial evidence has to be inferred in accordance with of the parameters laid down by Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), however, upto this stage, none of the parameters laid down in aforesaid judgement are satisfied against applicant, videography, which has been transferred to pen drive has not been made part of the case diary, no certificate under section 65 B of the Evidence Act has been furnished, by the person from whom the video was transferred to pen drive, the clean antecedents of applicant, period of incarceration undergone, the Police Report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant remains crystalized yet the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record, necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, as per the confessional statement of co-accused the author of the fatal injury sustained by the deceased is co-accused Majhle @ Virendra himself, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
