Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that though applicant has criminal history of two cases, however, considering the three judges Bench judgement of Supreme Court in Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar and another, (2022) 4 SCC, 497, this Court finds that mere criminal history will not be a bar to grant bail to the applicant, the three prosecution witness of fact examined upto this stage i.e. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have not supported the charge sheet, therefore, the clean antecedents of applicant , the period of incarceration undergone, the police report having been submitted, therefore, no good ground exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant now stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the course of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373, therefore, irrespective of objections 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.
