Honble SHETHNA, J.–Learned counsel Shri Sandhu vehemently submitted that in this case even the dead body of the deceased Mohan Singh was not found, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. He further submitted that there is a delay of about 24 days in lodging FIR. He also submitted that in this case except the extra judicial confession on the accused there is no other evidence and it has been held by the Supreme Court in number of cases that extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and no conviction can be based on the extra judicial confession made by the accused. (2). In case of murder, it is not always necessary that dead body of the deceased must be found. There are cases wherein even the acused have been convicted where the dead body of the deceased were not found, if the other evidence was sufficient to record the conviction. Therefore, first submission of Mr. Sandhu is rejected. (3). Second submission of Mr. Sandhu that there was a delay in filing the FIR by 24 days cannot be accepted at this stage. In this case, it must be stated that the widow of the deceased Mohan Singh filed complaint against none else but her real brother-present accused only when the accused himself confessed before his sister that he killed his brother in law Mohan Singh and threw is dead body in the canal. Hence, the second submission of Mr. Sandhu is also rejected. (4). The last contention of Mr. Sandhu that no conviction can be recorded on the sole evidence of accused cannot be accepted at this stage. It is true that it is a weak piece of evidence but it is not always necessary that on the basis of extra judicial confession the accused cannot be convicted. If the evidence led at the trial found to be satisfactory by the trial Court then the accused may be convicted for the offence for which he is charged. In this case, it must be stated that it is alleged by the witnesses, who are close relatives of the accused that he made extra judicial confession before them stating that he killed Mohan Singh and threw away his dead body in the canal. Hence, the last submission of Mr. Sandhu is also rejected. (5). In this case, it must be stated that it is alleged by the witnesses, who are close relatives of the accused that he made extra judicial confession before them stating that he killed Mohan Singh and threw away his dead body in the canal. Hence, the last submission of Mr. Sandhu is also rejected. (5). Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, I do not see any reason to grant bail to the petitioner accused. (6). Before parting, I must state that I have avoided to make elaborate discussion on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but some reasons have to be assigned when the matter is argued vehemently. However, I may make it clear that whatever observations have been made in this order shall not come in the way of the accused during trial. It goes without saying that the learned trial Judge shall decide the case on the evidence led before him. (7). With these observations, this bail application is dismissed.