ORDER : 1. Under incarceration for alleged offences of murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence and criminal conspiracy in furtherance of investigation into FIR No.77/2016, registered at Police Station, Baytu, District Barmer, petitioner has laid instant application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to seek his release on bail. 2. The bare necessary facts for the purpose of this bail application are that complainant Shanker Lal submitted a written report before SHO PS Baytu, District Barmer on 12th of September 2016, inter-alia, alleging therein that on the intervening night of 11th and 12th of September 2016 his father Deepa Ram was given severe beatings by unknown persons and due to grievious injuries on head and other vital parts of the body, he succumbed to death. The written report was registered as aforementioned FIR and investigation commenced. Pursuant to investigation, police collected certain incriminating evidence against the petitioner and consequently he was apprehended on 17th September 2016 with four other accused persons. While in custody, as a consequence of information received from petitioner, police collected incriminating material, viz., blood-stained lathi and his bloods-meared clothes. In due course of time, police submitted charge-sheet against petitioner and four other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences. 3. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a bare reading of FIR makes it abundantly clear that it is against unknown persons and therefore prima facie there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with alleged offences. Learned counsel would contend that during investigation no witness has whispered against the petitioner much less showed his involvement in commission of offence. Learned counsel further submits that even the information of Mukhbir is conspicuously silent about the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel that there is no semblance of proof about motive of the petitioner for commission of offence. Taking a dig at recovery of incriminating material on alleged disclosure of the petitioner, learned counsel has argued that the same is under serious cloud inasmuch as it is almost 8-9 days after the occurrence of incident. Learned counsel has also urged that one of the co-accused Bhika Ram, who had some motive to commit the offence, has been granted bail by the Court, and therefore, petitioner also deserves reprieve in the form of bail. Learned counsel has also urged that one of the co-accused Bhika Ram, who had some motive to commit the offence, has been granted bail by the Court, and therefore, petitioner also deserves reprieve in the form of bail. Lastly, learned counsel has argued that completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet in the matter is yet another relevant consideration for enlarging the petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application of petitioner. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from co-accused Bhika Ram and Dhamma Ram. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that recovery of blood-stained lathi on disclosure of petitioner and his blood-smeared clothes with sufficient proof that it was human blood, looking to the nature of offence, which is a heinous offence, his bail plea is liable to be thwarted. 5. Mr. D.P. Saraswat, learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that recovery of blood-stained lathi and blood-smeared clothes, at the instance of petitioner, is a vital inculpatory evidence against him. Learned counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance on the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur dated 25th November 2016 wherein blood group of deceased Deepa Ram is shown as B+ and the blood found on the shirt recovered at the instance of petitioner is also B+. Placing heavy reliance on the FSL Report, learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is clinching evidence against the petitioner for commission of heinous offence of murder and therefore he is not entitled for bail. 6. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record including the FSL Report. 7. Criminal cases in common parlance are founded either on ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. It is quite perplexing that more than 90% cases are based on circumstantial evidence. 6. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record including the FSL Report. 7. Criminal cases in common parlance are founded either on ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. It is quite perplexing that more than 90% cases are based on circumstantial evidence. There are multifarious reasons for this sort of situation but some plausible are delineated as follows: (i) The modus operandi of accused persons to commit crimes at secluded places and clandestinely; (ii) Commission of most of the crimes within family or among near relatives where eye witness to the crime is reluctant or hesitant to depose against the offender; (iii) At times, independent witness is feeling shy to come forward for testifying against accused due to personal apathy, indifference, or fear of grilling by police; (iv) A witness generally avoids climbing labyrinth of cumbersome process of investigation and apprehension of harassment; and (v) Nature of crime, viz., offences of mental depravity, economic offences and offences committed with ingenious methods or newly invented devices and modern techniques etc. where it is difficult or uphill task for the investigating agency to cite any eye witness. 8. The case in hand is also based on circumstantial evidence. True it is that when entire edifice of the prosecution case is circumstantial evidence, it pre-supposes that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused and it must show that in all humane probabilities the act must have been done by the accused but then such micro-analysis of evidence before trial cannot be countenanced. Be that as it may, the burden lies on the prosecution to adduce cogent evidence during trial to complete the chain for bringing home guilt against accused persons. 9. At the stage of considering bail application, however, it is rather difficult for the Court to perceive any doubt about reliability or authenticity of the prosecution evidence which may come during trial. Degree of certainty at this stage cannot be considered more particularly in the wake of available inculpatory evidence against accused person. In the instant case, recovery of blood-stained lathi and blood smeared clothes upon petitioner’s disclosure cannot be eschewed. Degree of certainty at this stage cannot be considered more particularly in the wake of available inculpatory evidence against accused person. In the instant case, recovery of blood-stained lathi and blood smeared clothes upon petitioner’s disclosure cannot be eschewed. A significant fact, that blood group of the deceased is matching with blood found on the shirt of the accused, cannot loose sight of the Court so as to brush aside/underplay the FSL Report, which is otherwise admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 293 Cr.P.C. 10. The case of co-accused Bhika Ram as well as Dhamma Ram, who are enlarged on bail, I am afraid, is not on par with the petitioner and clearly distinguishable. The prosecution, while collecting incriminating evidence against them, has found their motive to commit the crime, but sans motive no other evidence has surfaced. Moreover, neither there is any recovery from them nor any proof of an overt-act. 11. Undeniably, part of the evidence unfurled during investigation is exculpatory vis-a-vis petitioner but then there is some prima facie inculpatory evidence against him which has come to the fore having direct ramification on this bail application. Therefore, looking to the gravity and magnitude of the offence, which is punishable with maximum sentence of life term imprisonment, while desisting to make any comments on merits, unhesitatingly, I feel persuaded to deny bail to the petitioner. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that instant bail application fails and is, therefore, dismissed.