Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for state, Mr. Karuna Nand Tiwari, the learned counsel representing 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 present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefore, there is no eyewitness of the occurrence, the complicity of an accused in a case based upon circumstantial evidence has to be inferred in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Shard Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra) the incriminating circumstances that have emerged against applicant during the course of investigation (as noted above) are by themselves not so sufficient and cogent so as to infer the guilt of the applicant in the crime in question, there is no recovery from the applicant nor there is any evidence of last seen against applicant, no strong motive to commit the crime in question has emerged against applicant either, there is no previous enmity, therefore, no animus can be gathered against applicant, the clean
