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 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 upon circumstantial evidence has to be inferred in accordance with parameters laid down by Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 , however, upto this stage, none of the parameters laid down by Apex court in aforesaid judgement are satisfied against applicant, there is no evidence of last seen, no recovery has been made from applicant, the only motive which has been assigned to applicant for committing the crime in question is as per the statement of one witness examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. namely, Raj Mani Gautam, who has stated that deceased was having illicit relation with the applicant, therefore death of deceased has been caused by applicant, the motive assigned for commission of crime is not cogent and strong so as to infer guilt of applicants, clean antecedents of applicant, period of incarceration, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted thereafter the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. yet inspite of above, neither the learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel for first informant could point out any such circumstance from the record, necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The state of maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live law (SC) 373 , applicant is a lady and therefore, entitled to the benefit of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A and the learned counsel for first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
