JASPAL SINGH,J. - (1.) KAMALVEER who is the present petitioner has been arrested under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. The prosecution is relying upon the recovery of the shirt of the petitioner and a dagger at his instance consequent upon a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly, the shirt so recovered contains no blood-stains. As far as the dagger is concerned, I am told by the learned counsel for the State that it too contains no blood-stain and that barring the opinion of the doctor that injuries were caused by a sharp-dged weapon there is nothing to show that the dagger which the petitioner allegedly got recovered was connected with the crime.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was last seen with the deceased. She says that though his name is not mentioned, he is described as 'Lala'. However, she does further admit that there is nothing on the record in the form of any statement under Section 161 or in the form of any document, to prima facie prove or show that Kamalveer is known as 'Lala' also. Keeping in view what has been noticed by me above, I feel that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. The application is allowed. Bail is granted in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. However, it is made clear that nothing said in this order shall be read as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Crl.M. (M) 2300/95 stands disposed of.;