ORDER : 1. Heard Smt. Pauline Priyanka B. learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sharon I Princilly, for the accused/petitioner and Sri S Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 2. This Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer: “Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner/Accused No.1 that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order granting bail thereby directing the respondent police to release the petitioner/accused No.1 in S.C.No.1497/2021 in Cr.No.216/2021 for the offences punishable U/Sec.201, 302, 120(B) & 34 of IPC pending before the file of the LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-66) in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by Smt. Christina.P W/o George in Kumaraswamy Layout police station which was registered in Cr.No.216/2021 on 20.08.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC, initially against the unknown person. 4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that Christina.P is the relative of Smt. Premalatha and her husband Shantharaju. Premalatha and Shantharaju were residing in house bearing No.236, 2nd Main, Harsha School Road, Harsha Layout, Kashinagar, Yelachenahalli, Bengaluru City. Shantharaju retired as a Mechanic from in BMTC about 18 years earlier and was living with his wife and they had no children of their own and as such they have adopted one girl by name Harshitha @ Baby. She used to often visit the house of Premalatha and Shantharaju. 5. When the matter stood thus, on 20.08.2021 at about 2.30 p.m., Shobha one of the tenants of Shantharaju called the mother-in-law of the complainant by name Asha and told that somebody had murdered both Premalatha and Shantharaju. Immediately, complainant, his younger sisters Reena and Latha visited the house of Shantharaju at about 5.30 pm., and went inside the house and noticed that dead body of Premalatha was found in bathroom and dead body of Shantharaju was found in the bedroom. 6. Based on the complaint, police registered a case against the unknown person and investigated the matter. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner has been apprehended by the police on 23.08.2021 and gold ornaments weighing 72 grams were recovered from the custody of the petitioner based on his voluntary statement. The police were also able to recover gold ornaments from the co-accused persons. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner has been apprehended by the police on 23.08.2021 and gold ornaments weighing 72 grams were recovered from the custody of the petitioner based on his voluntary statement. The police were also able to recover gold ornaments from the co-accused persons. 7. The voluntary statement further discloses that the petitioner and others hatched a plan to take away the life of the couple and take away the valuables found in the house of Premalatha and Shantharaju. In furtherance of their plan, on the fateful day, they entered the house of Premalatha and Shantharaju, and used the force and killed both of them. The allegation as against the petitioner is that he smothered Premalatha with the help of a pillow to kill her and later on dragged her to the bathroom, and banged her head to the wall, whereby Premalatha lost her life. The co-accused persons assaulted mercilessly Shantharaju and his life was also taken of by the accused persons. Thereafter, they robbed the gold ornaments and other valuables found in the house and ran away. After arresting the petitioner, he was sent to judicial custody. During custodial interrogation, there is a recovery of robbed gold ornaments from the custody of the accused persons including the present petitioner. 8. The request for grant of bail by the petitioner was turned down by order dated 22.08.2022 in SC No.1497/2021 before the District Court. Thereafter petitioner is before this Court. 9. In the bail petition, following grounds have been raised. • The Petitioner humbly submit that, on plain perusal of the complaint and statements of the witnesses it is clearly made out that, the alleged offence took place in the residence of the Deceased at Kashinagar and it is also clear that as per the allegations made out it is clear that the Accused and the victim were known to each other since 2005 and further it is evident that, the entire event they were no person who has witnessed the said act of the Accused. It is also vividly explained by many witness that, the deceased were always lonely and had no much relatives around and that the deceased premalatha use to talk and invite many other neighbours as well. • The Petitioner further submits that, in the instant case the entire allegation against the Petitioner is completely based on the hearsay facts. It is also vividly explained by many witness that, the deceased were always lonely and had no much relatives around and that the deceased premalatha use to talk and invite many other neighbours as well. • The Petitioner further submits that, in the instant case the entire allegation against the Petitioner is completely based on the hearsay facts. • Petitioner humbly submits that, the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has no any links or connection with the alleged offences and based on the hearsay evidence and without any proper verification the Respondent Police based on the false claims of the Complainant have falsely implicated the Petitioner in the above case. • The Petitioner humbly submit, that the entire case is based on the residential theory and last seen theory, there is no any incriminating or any direct evidence or any statement of the prosecution witness which would establish the presence of the Petitioner in the alleged incident spot and solely based on the hearsay facts the Petitioner is being arrayed as an Accused. Hence, there is no any prima-facie case made out against the Petitioner. • The Petitioner humbly submits that, in the instant case there are no any eye witness or any direct or incriminating evidences against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offence nor any circumstantial evidence which has a clear chain of events which proves the case of the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Petitioner humbly submit that, on plain perusal of the Complaint and other statement recorded during the course of the investigation it is abundantly clear that, the Accused's and the victim all are friends and there is no any ill will and misunderstanding or any motive for the commission of the said act. • The petitioner/Accused No-1 and the deceased were well known to each other since 2005 and had maintained cordial relationship on many occasions the Petitioner/Accused No.1 has visited the house of the Deceased and thus there is no any motive, mensrea or any ill will which are the primary ingredients of any criminal charge. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for bail. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for bail. • In Bhuvaneshwar Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2009 (SC) 1452 the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that, it is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. Any order de hors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind. In the instant case, there are no any direct witness or any eye witness. Hence the question of the Petitioner tampering the witness is completely ruled out and does not arise at all. Secondly, the allegation is completely based on mere hearsay facts rather than any direct evidence, hence, it is not a case of water tight compartment but there are many space for the construction of theories of conspiracies. • The Petitioner humbly submits, it is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that, no accused/person his guilty of any offence until and unless the same is established beyond the reasonable doubt and is convicted by the Hon'ble Court, and it is also well established that, criminal jurisprudence gives an undoubted benefit of presumption of innocence to a person un-till proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, plain reading and perusal of the complaint nor the charge sheet makes out any prima facie case in favor of the prosecution and there are various loopholes which doubts the fairness and the truthfulness of the investigation. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail. • The Petitioner further submits that, it is well established principle of law. that bail is a Right and jail is an exception, and the former has to be resorted only as a last resort, which has enumerated and reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Plethora of cases and mainly in the case of G. Narasimhalu Vs. Public Prosecutor, reported in AIR 1978 SC 429 . • It is submitted that the petitioner is a married man having an Physically Challenged Wife and Girl Child and the entire family is dependent on him for their livelihood. Public Prosecutor, reported in AIR 1978 SC 429 . • It is submitted that the petitioner is a married man having an Physically Challenged Wife and Girl Child and the entire family is dependent on him for their livelihood. The Petitioner is the sole bread earner and has a handicapped Wife at home who is liable to be taken care by the Petitioner and at present the family members of the petitioner are suffering a lot in the absence of petitioner. Hence, under such circumstances the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. • It is submitted that the petitioner is studied upto 10th Standard and is having a provision store in his hometown the petitioner is a law abiding citizen. Further, the social commitment of the petitioner is deeply rooted in the society. The petitioner will not flee away from justice. Hence, it is absolutely necessary to grant an order of bail in favour of the petitioner as the Petitioner has got a valid and good tenable defense on his behalf. Further, the Petitioner hails a lot of reputation and if the Petitioner is being dragged in the said criminal proceedings, Petitioner would deprived of constitutionally guaranteed rights. • It is most humbly submitted that, the Petitioners is not a habitual offender if the petitioner is exposed to the radical elements in the prison, there is a lot of chances of the Petitioner who is an innocent getting corrupted and the Petitioner has no antecedents of previous criminal records. Hence the Petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail. • It is submitted that the petitioner will be present before the Hon'ble Court on all dates of hearing without fail and will not tamper any prosecution witnesses and will co-operate with the investigation officer. Further, the petitioner is ready to offer adequate surety for his due appearance in the said case without fail and ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed for the Hon'ble Court for granting an order of bail. • The petitioner is a bonafide, reasonable and honest person. If the petition is not allowed. The reputation and virtues of the petitioner as well as the personal liberty of the Petitioner will be under jeopardy. • It is submitted that since the charge sheet is filed, the Petitioner is not at all required for any further investigation. • The petitioner is a bonafide, reasonable and honest person. If the petition is not allowed. The reputation and virtues of the petitioner as well as the personal liberty of the Petitioner will be under jeopardy. • It is submitted that since the charge sheet is filed, the Petitioner is not at all required for any further investigation. Since, prima facie there are no substance to proceed with the prosecution. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for regular bail. • The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. There is no question of petitioner tampering the witnesses if bail is granted. In the event of granting bail, the Petitioner undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. • No other bail petition in respect of the same Crime is pending either before this Hon'ble High Court or before any other Court seeking the relief sought in the petition.” 10. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Mrs. Pauline Priyanka B., appearing on behalf of Sri Sharon I.Princilly, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner is totally innocent of the offences alleged against him and he being the handicapped person, could not have been involved in smothering one of the deceased persons namely Premalatha with a pillow and entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and therefore, continuation of the accused person in judicial custody is no longer warranted as the charge sheet has already been filed. She also contended that continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody would amount to pre trial conviction and sought for grant of bail. 11. She also pointed out that value to be attached to the alleged voluntary statement is practically Nil, except for the fact that seizure of gold ornaments from the custody of the petitioner will have to be proved by the investigating agency by placing proper and cogent evidence during the trial and therefore, this is not a case where continuation of the accused/petitioner in judicial custody is utmost needed and the case does not require for custodial trial and sought for grant of bail. 12. 12. In support of her arguments, she placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1 ; (2) Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 ; (3) Lt. col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 ; (4) Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 ; (5) Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 ; (6) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 13. The relevant portions of the aforesaid Judgments are culled out hereunder for ready reference: (1) Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 1 : “Pre Trial Bail – Origin of, traced The provision for bail goes back to the Magna Carta itself. Clause 39, which was at that time, written in Latin, provided that no free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will he be proceeded against with force, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. What is important to learn from the history is that Clause 39 of the Magna Carta was subsequently extended to pre-trial imprisonment, so that persons could be enlarged on bail to secure their attendance for the ensuing trial. (Paras 15 to 18)” (2) In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , Paras 21, 33, 38 and 39 are extracted hereunder: 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 33. The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by this Court in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan [ (2009) 2 SCC 281 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 745], thus: (SCC pp. 33. The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by this Court in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan [ (2009) 2 SCC 281 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 745], thus: (SCC pp. 286-87, paras 6-8) xxxxx 8. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt.” 38. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [ (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] this Court held as under: 11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [ (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [ (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)’ *** 39. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [ (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [ (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)’ *** 39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds: the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that of the possibility of the accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. (3) In Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 458 , Para 29 is extracted hereunder: “29. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.” (4) In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 at paragraphs 3, 6, 16 it is held as under: “3. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge-sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. 6. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. 16. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the appellant. This is a matter that will, of course, be dealt with by the trial Judge. However, what is important, as far as we are concerned, is that during the entire period of investigations which appear to have been spread over seven months, the appellant was not arrested by the investigating officer. Even when the appellant apprehended that he might be arrested after the charge-sheet was filed against him, he was not arrested for a considerable period of time. When he approached the Allahabad High Court for quashing the FIR lodged against him, he was granted two months' time to appear before the trial Judge. All these facts are an indication that there was no apprehension that the appellant would abscond or would hamper the trial in any manner. That being the case, the trial Judge, as well as the High Court ought to have judiciously exercised discretion and granted bail to the appellant. It is nobody's case that the appellant is a shady character and there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity, let alone any alleged illegal activity.” 5. In Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129 , it is held in paragraphs 15 and 17 as under: “15. As held in Puran case [Puran Vs. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] , while considering the question of grant of bail, court should avoid consideration of details of the evidence as it is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided. We, therefore, consciously refrain from considering the merits of the materials/evidence collected by the prosecution. 17. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided. We, therefore, consciously refrain from considering the merits of the materials/evidence collected by the prosecution. 17. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are : (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court.” 6. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , it is held as under: “The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence: 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established, 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability theact must have been done by the accused. Moreover the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured r supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a court. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured r supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a court. There is a vital difference between an incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance which, after the chain is complete, is added to it merely to reinforce the conclusion of the court. The facts and circumstances of the present case therefore do not fully satisfy the five conditions of the rule of circumstantial evidence. It cannot be held that the act of the accused cannot be explained on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellant, nor can it be said that in all human probability, the accused had committed the murder of his wife.” 14. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail grounds by contending that the offence is heinous in nature and when the prosecution has invoked Section 34 of IPC, individual overt act of any particular accused would lose its significance and there is no explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner as to the seizure of 72 grams of gold ornaments from his custody. 15. He also pointed out that mere fact that the petitioner is an handicapped person would not ipso facto make out a case by resorting to the special powers vested with this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in view of the fact that in the incident, two valuable lives of senior citizens have been lost and at the time of incident, the couple were in hapless situation and therefore, the gravity of the offence alleged against the accused/petitioner is higher in the degree, which is one of the important factors to be borne in mind while granting the bail or rejecting the bail and sought for rejection the bail petition. 16. He also contended that in the event that the prosecution is successful in establishing the offences alleged against the petitioner, the petitioner is exposed to the extreme penalty of death penalty or at least life imprisonment and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 17. 16. He also contended that in the event that the prosecution is successful in establishing the offences alleged against the petitioner, the petitioner is exposed to the extreme penalty of death penalty or at least life imprisonment and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 17. He also pointed out that mere filing of the charge sheet in every case, would not act as a favourable condition to the petitioner to get an order of bail by resorting to the special powers vested with this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and thus sought for grant of the bail petition. 18. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that one of the tenants of the premises bearing No.236, 2nd Main, Harsha School Road, Harsha Layout, Kashinagar, Yelachenahalli, Bengaluru City, by name Shobha came to know about the murder of Premalatha and Shantharaju and called the mother-in-law of the complainant by name Asha, around 3.30 p.m., on 20.08.2021 and intimated about the murder of Premalatha and Shantharaju. Thereafter, the complainant visited the place of incident and after verification of the intimation received by her, she approached the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint. 20. On perusal of the material on record, it is seen that police after registering the case against unknown person, investigated the matter thoroughly. During such investigation, the petitioner has been apprehended; so also the co-accused persons. 21. Based on the voluntary statement given by the accused persons, gold ornaments which were found on the body of Premalatha, one of the deceased in the incident, has been recovered from the custody of the petitioner. 22. Admittedly, petitioner is not such an affluent person so as to possess 72 grams of gold. Having regard to the financial status of the petitioner and in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the petitioner to possess the gold ornaments which were found on the body of Premalatha and identified by the prosecution witnesses, prima facie there exists a nexus between the incident and the petitioner. 23. Having regard to the financial status of the petitioner and in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the petitioner to possess the gold ornaments which were found on the body of Premalatha and identified by the prosecution witnesses, prima facie there exists a nexus between the incident and the petitioner. 23. The fact that the petitioner is a handicapped person, as is rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader, would not itself act as a favourable factor in considering the bail request of the petitioner inasmuch as according to the prosecution, it is the petitioner who smothered Premalatha with the help of a pillow and thereafter, the coaccused dragged her and banged her head on to the wall and done to death. 24. Suffice to say that the gold ornaments which were robbed away from the place of the incident being recovered from the custody of the petitioner based on the voluntary statement, prima facie establish the case of the prosecution. 25. Likewise, it is settled principles of law that in a circumstantial evidence, the petitioner/accused would not be entitled to grant of bail straight away. 26. The principles as to grant or rejection of bail is now practically well settled. Court has to consider the following necessary parameters while granting or rejection of the bail: • The nature of accusation, • Severity of punishment (gravity of the offence) • The nature of evidence in support of thereof, • The character of the accused • Likely hood of accused fleeing away from trial, • Possibility of witnesses being tampered with, • possibility of hampering the investigation, • Presence of accused for custodial investigation • Presence of accused for identification parade • The social and financial status of the accused in relation to offence alleged • Peculiar circumstances relating to the accused, • The larger interest of public/state • Impact on the society at large if bail is granted • Health, age & sex of the accused • Prospects of speedy trial • Stage at which bail is sought 27. Keeping in mind the above parameters and the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, when the material on record is appreciated, prima facie there are strong materials in the charge sheet materials as against the petitioner to establish the direct nexus between the incident and the petitioner. Keeping in mind the above parameters and the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, when the material on record is appreciated, prima facie there are strong materials in the charge sheet materials as against the petitioner to establish the direct nexus between the incident and the petitioner. 28. Now coming to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and other allied offences, held that continuation of the accused in a given case in judicial custody is warranted or not. In the case on hand, the provisions that are invoked by the prosecution is Sections 302 and 201 IPC, therefore, the facts of this case and the facts in the case of Nikesh Tarahand Shah supra, are totally different and therefore the same is not of any help for the petitioner in advancing his case any further. 29. In the case of Sanjay Chandra, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a situation that when once the charge sheet is filed and when the petitioner would be brought before the Court for the trial, the courts are to be liberal in accepting the bail request of the given accused. In the case on hand, having regard to the gravity of the offence, especially valuable life of two senior citizens have been lost in the incident only for the gain of petitioner and others, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principles of law enunciated in Sathish Chandra supra that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, cannot be applied in all force to the case on hand. In the present case exception would prevail more than the Rule. As such, the said decision is also of no avail in accepting the bail request of the petitioner. 30. Nextly, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Lt.Col. Prakash Srikanth Purohit. In the said case, the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court was with regard to the offences alleged against an accused under the provisions of TADA Act. 30. Nextly, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Lt.Col. Prakash Srikanth Purohit. In the said case, the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court was with regard to the offences alleged against an accused under the provisions of TADA Act. It is pertinent to note that the said Act has now been repealed and the facts of the case involved in the Purohit’s case is altogether different in the case on hand. Therefore, the principles of law enunciated in the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 31. In the case of Dattaram Singh, the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the situation where an accused would be treated as an innocent in view of the presumption available to the given accused and therefore, prosecution case is to be appreciated vis a vis, the presumption available to an accused. In the case on hand, since there is no explanation what so ever offered by the accused/petitioner insofar as possession of 72 grams of the gold which has been identified that those seized ornaments are belonging to the deceased Premalatha by the prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principles of law enunciated in the Dattaram Singh’s case though cannot be found fault with, are not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, the same is also not much avail for the petitioner in getting him enlarged on bail. 32. In yet another decision that has been relied on behalf of the accused the case of Anil Kumar Yadav referred to supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering that the accused was in custody for a period of more than one year and therefore, in a murder like crime, if the accused was in custody for more than one year may not be relevant consideration in granting the bail. In fact, this decision would help the prosecution rather than the accused. 33. In the case of Sharad Biradhichand Sarda, the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the relevant factors to hold that a particular accused is guilty of the offence when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and their Lordships in that celebrated judgment have enunciated that five important circumstances are to be established by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence. Nobody can dispute the golden principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case. However, the said aspect is to be looked into by the Trial Court after the full fledged trial and at this stage this Court cannot delve upon the details and merits of the case as the same may prejudice the case of the parties during trial on one way or the other. 34. Suffice to say that the material available on record at this stage would definitely dis-entitle the present petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., especially in view of the fact that there is a huge quantity of gold is recovered from the custody of the accused based on his voluntary statement. 35. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly sufficient to admit the request of grant of bail. Further apprehension of the prosecution is well founded and therefore, following order: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed.