Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, the learned counsel for first informant upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that as per the material on record which has also been referred to above, the role of the applicant is that of conspirator, the act of strangulation upon the deceased was performed by charge sheeted accused Aman Khan, whereas the stabbed wounds upon the body of the deceased were caused by charge sheeted accused Arif. As such, the case of the present applicant is clearly distinguishable from aforementioned co-accused. Prima facie, the recovery alleged to have been made on the pointing of applicant is false as there is no independent witness of recovery, the criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained, the applicant is in jail since 3.4.2023, as such, he has undergone almost 4 months of incarceration, in spite of the fact that the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. has been submitted and the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, 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, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
