- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the Appellant that there is no direct evidence in the present case but the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. So far as last seen evidence is concerned, he referred the statement of PW1 Totaram with FIR Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 Totaram, father of the deceased and contended that if PW1 Totaram was witness of last seen, then there was no reason for not mentioning the said circumstances in the written report lodged by PW1 Totaram himself. It is further contended that so far as recovery of clothes and human blood found thereon is concerned, a bare perusal of , Recovery Memo of clothes of accused, will reveal that 'T -shirt' was found blood stained, but there was 'shirt' over it and no blood was found on it, blood was found on 'underwear' but no 'pant' was either recovered or blood stain was found on it. In these circumstances, prima -facie, conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be legal and proper in the eye of law and the accused is entitled for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.;