13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel representing first informant and upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, complicity of accused, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that the applicant is not named but a charge sheeted accued, the case of the resent applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused who is named but a charge sheeted accused i.e. Karan Singh @ Kallu, no such distinguishing feature could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. or the learned counsel for first informant to distinguish the case of the present applicant from that of not named but charge sheeted and bailed out coaccused Karan @ Kallu, in spite of the fact that the charge sheet has been submitted, as such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhash Chandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2023 Live Law SC 373(5), clean antecedents of applicant, period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case the applicant has made out a case for bail.
