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 that co-accused Mahtab has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, the Court while enlarging the co-accused Mahtab ono bail has observed that case of applicant is distinguishable with that of other co-accused, this Court finds that applicant is also residing separately from the house of deceased, which fact has been categorically pleaded in paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, the said fact is clearly evidenced by Ration Card of the applicant, as per the site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by Investigating Officer, 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, therefore irrespective of the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
