Having heard the leaned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence therefore there is no eye-witness of the occurrence, the complicity of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence is to be judged in the light of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 however, up to this stage, none of the parameters laid down in the aforementioned judgement are satisfied against the present applicant, there is no evidence of last seen nor any recovery has been made from applicant, no strong motive has emerged against applicant for committing he crime in question, coaccused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, there being no such distinguishing feature so as to distinguish the case of the present applicant from the bailed out coaccused so as to deny him bail, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone and inspite of the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant and therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, 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, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
