JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Sejpal learned Counsel for the Applicant/appellant and Mrs. Pai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that in the instant case the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that the circumstances which are brought on record, are wholly inadequate to bring home the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the discovery of knife as well as clothes having human blood• has not been done in accordance with the procedure stipulated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. It is contended that even the so called extra-judicial confession which was alleged to have been made by the accused to PW -4 Anilkumar cannot be relied on since PW4 did not support the prosecution on this issue, hence the prosecution sought permission to cross-examine him. 4. It is further contended that the prosecution also failed to prove the motive behind the murder. Except the appellant, who was residing in room No.8, next to the room where the deceased was residing at the relevant time, there is no other evidence brought on record by the prosecution to establish motive behind the crime. It is submitted that in the case based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes importance and in the absence of motive, other circumstances require to be so strong to complete the chain in order to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts, however, in the instant case, neither the motive nor the circumstances which are brought on record by the prosecution are good enough to prove the charge of murder beyond all reasonable doubts. 5. It is further contended that so far as the evidence of PW -2 Karamat Shaikh (Watchman) is concerned, the same is not free from suspicion. It is further submitted that so far as gas cylinder and burner (Shegdi) is concerned, these are the articles readily available in the market and, therefore, this circumstance by itself does not further the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case, the evidence collected by the prosecution is only after arrest of the accused which creates suspicion about the authenticity of the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that in the instant case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Mrs. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case, the evidence collected by the prosecution is only after arrest of the accused which creates suspicion about the authenticity of the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that in the instant case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Mrs. Pai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that in the instant case the circumstances which are brought on record by the prosecution are so complete in itself which clearly prove the case against the applicant beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences charged and therefore the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court are just and proper and are sustainable in law. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that incident had taken place in the night intervening 17-1-2007 to 18-1-2007. It is contended that the applicant is permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and was apprehended only after 12 days of the incident from Wadi Junction (State of Karnataka). It is submitted that PW-2 Karamat Sheikh who was at the relevant time watchman of the building saw the accused at about 5 :00 a.m. on 18-12007 who left the gas cylinder and burner (Shegdi) near the building No.3. The evidence of PW-2 has been corroborated by the evidence of PW -3 Prakash and these articles were identified by PW -9 Anita wife of the deceased. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that in the instant case there is a discovery of weapon by the accused i.e. knife (Suri) pursuant to the memorandum statement, which had blood of human origin. It is further submitted that similar is the situation in respect of the discovery of blood stained clothes of the accused. It is further submitted that the accused has given extra-judicial confession to PW -4Anilkumar to whom he has confessed that he had committed a crime in question. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence is corroborated by Medical Officer Dr. Shinde PW -7. It is further submitted that the conduct of the accused immediately after the commission of an offence is also relevant. The accused was apprehended after 12 days of the incident that too at Wadi Junction (State of Karnataka). It is submitted that the prosecution evidence is corroborated by Medical Officer Dr. Shinde PW -7. It is further submitted that the conduct of the accused immediately after the commission of an offence is also relevant. The accused was apprehended after 12 days of the incident that too at Wadi Junction (State of Karnataka). It is also submitted that the applicant was not on bail during the course of the trial and if the applicant is released on bail, it will be difficult for the prosecution to secure his presence at the time of final hearing and disposal of the appeal. It is in these circumstances she prayed that the application of the applicant for bail is liable to be rejected. 9. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. We would like to express that at the stage of consideration of grant of bail Court is not expected to reconsider the entire prosecution evidence in order to find out whether the findings of conviction are sustainable in law or not. It is no doubt true that at this stage the Court needs to consider whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution prima facie connects the applicant with the crime in question and order of conviction whether prima facie is sustainable in law. In the instant case, there is another aspect which we have to keep in mind that the appellant was not on bail during the course of the trial. Similarly, being a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh, who was not on bail during the course of the trial, whether is entitled to be released on bail after the judgment of order of conviction. 10. In the instant case, the evidence of PW-2 demonstrates that immediately after the commission of an offence the applicant was seen leaving articles such as gas and burner (Shegdi) near Building No.3 at 5.00 a.m. on 18-12-2007. There is a discovery by the applicant, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the weapons of offence, namely, knife '(Suri) which had blood of human origin. Similar is the situation in respect of clothes of the accused. The prosecution evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The evidence of PW-2 Sk. There is a discovery by the applicant, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the weapons of offence, namely, knife '(Suri) which had blood of human origin. Similar is the situation in respect of clothes of the accused. The prosecution evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The evidence of PW-2 Sk. Karamat (Watchman) and PW-3 Prakash so far as it relates to the articles left by the deceased near Building No.3 is concerned, same is corroborated by PW-9 Anita, who is the wife of the deceased. The contentions canvassed by the counsel for the applicant that the investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer after the arrest of the applicant is of no consequence since there is no prohibition in law that the investigation cannot be conducted in respect of the crime, after the arrest of the culprit. 11. As the applicant is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and was not on bail during the course of the trial, as well as the evidence available on record we are of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of bail. The application is rejected. Petition dismissed.