dead body was found lying on the previous day and also to another place from where the dead body was shifted to that place. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence in the case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence and in the meantime, during trial thirteen witnesses have already been examined and the witnesses to the leading to discovery have been examined as P.W.12 and P.W.13. P.W.12 has stated that the petitioner no.1 Chakaman Bag led the police to the spot of occurrence, showed the spot and thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was reduced to writing and the petitioner no.1 signed thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the dead body has already been recovered on 25.02.2017 and on the subsequent day, the petitioner led to the place from where the dead body was alleged to have been found and the statement was recorded thereafter, it cannot be said that the said place was detected or discovered in pursuance of the statement of the petitioner no.1 recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the fact which has already been discovered, section 27 cannot be again be made use to rediscover the discovered fact or a fact already disclosed and capable of discovery and in absence of any other clinching material against the petitioners, the bail application may be favourably considered. He placed the statements of the informant P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.12 and P.W.13.
