D.R.Azad, J. - (1.) A prayer for bail to the appellant-applicants has been made in this criminal appeal, which arises out of their conviction by order of the Additional Sessions Judge,, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar, dated 20.1.09, and sentencing them under section 302 read with section 34 IPC in ST No. 1027 of 2006 (State Vs. Mintoo and others). We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicants and the learned AGA and perused the record and written objections. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are not of such a nature as to reach the only inference of guilt against the appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, one of the principal circumstances against the appellants was the evidence of last seen. In this connection, the appellants were last seen going along with the deceased Anil near Jansath Bus Stand on 13.7.2006 by PW 4 Sant Ram and PW 5 Dhan Pal. It was argued that the said evidence was not reliable because there was contradiction between the evidence of the two witnesses as to whether the deceased was last seen going along with the appellants on a motorcycle at the Jansath Morna Chowk as deposed to by PW 4 or at the Jansath Bus Stand as deposed to by PW 5 Dhan Pal as the two places are said to be about half km apart. These witnesses are also said to be relations and neighbours of the deceased and yet they did not disclose about the evidence of last seen to the family members of the deceased immediately after his disappearance on 13.7.2006 but later after his death was reported. After the arrest of the appellant Mintoo a country-made pistol is said to have been discovered at his instance and it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that he was jointly tried along with the present trial in ST No. 1028 of 2006 under section 25 of the Arms Act. But as the recovery of the alleged weapon was not considered reliable and no public witness supported the same, the appellant Mintoo was acquitted in the case under section 25 of the Arms Act at ST No. 1028 of 2006. . Another piece of circumstantial evidence was the recovery of the motorcycle of the deceased Anil on the same date, i.e. 22.7.2006 after the arrest of the appellant Mintoo when he is said to have led the police party to the Sukhera "Bari Nahar" where the appellant is said to have pointed out the place where he along with the co-accused Mahkar and Anil pushed the motorcycle into the canal after the incident and also threw new mobile phone of the deceased. With the help of divers Kalu and Bholu, the motorcycle was retrieved but not the mobile phone. The said recovery of the motorcycle was challenged by the appellants' counsel on the grounds that there was some discrepancy in the timings as suggested by PW 6, Vijay Pal, the witness of the recovery, who states that the recovery was effected at about 12 noon on 22.7.2006 whereas according to PW 10, SI Surendra Singh the same was effected at about 5 pm on that date. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to one line in the cross- examination of PW 6 Vijay Pal wherein he has mentioned that there was some talk in the morning of 22.7.2006 in the village that a motorcycle was to be recovered by the accused, which was inconsistent with the timing of the arrest of the accused Mintoo shown at 11.20 am. Per contra, learned AGA has tried to support the judgement of the trial court and contended that the distance between Jansath Bus Stand and Jansath Morna Chowk was not very significant and in view of this minor discrepancy, the evidence of the last-seen could not be discarded. Also, merely because the witnesses of last seenwere relations or that they disclosed about having last seen the deceased and the appellants together at a later stage after the discovery of the dead body of the deceased, could provide no ground for discarding the evidence of last-seen. Also, it is argued that even if the recovery of the country-made pistol is ignored, the recovery of the motorcycle which was fished out from the deep canal at the instance of the appellant Mintoo was a very significant recovery as no one else would have the knowledge that the motorcycle was lying under the water. Only after the disclosure was made by the appellant Mintoo that the two divers entered into the canal and pulled out the motorcycle with the aid of rope and saria etc. and the same afforded clinching evidence at least for establishing the complicity of the appellant Mintoo with the offence. It was also submitted that the appellant Mintoo had a motive for committing the crime as the deceased Anil was said to having illicit relations with his sister as was stated in the evidence of PW 3 Smt. Santosh, wife of the deceased Anil. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, so far as the appellant Mintoo is concerned, we are not inclined to grant bail to him. His prayer for bail is refused. However, so far the other two appellants, Mahkar and Anil, are concerned, the witnesses of the last- seen, PW 4 Sant Ram and PW 5 Dhan Pal, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, have only stated that they saw the deceased Anil going along with the appellant Mintoo and Mahkar at Jansath on 13.7.2006 and the appellant Anil was not even present there. There is very little evidence against Anil, hence there is no evidence against the appellant Anil except his confessional statement at the time of recovery of the motorcycle wherein it was mentioned by Mintoo that Anil and Mahkar were also involved in the incident. But the statement was made to the police, hence it is contended that the recovery of the motorcycle may have provided a link with the appellant Mintoo but the confessional statement was of little value against the co-accused Mahkar and Anil. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellants Mahkar and Anil may be released on bail to the satisfaction of the court concerned.;