1. ' The applicant Gulo son of Dahno has been declined bail by the learned Sessions Judge and he has now come before this Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are two eye- witnesses namely Jodho and Ropo nd both these witnesses, in their affidavits which they filed before the Sessions Court have categorically stated that the present applicant was not there at the scene at the time of committing of the offence. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the other two witnesses who have witnessed the alleged recovery of knife as well as the cloth have also sworn the affidavits before the learned Sessions Judge and stated that no recovery of the cloth has been made in their presence. Learned State .Counsel contends that in spite of the affidavits filed by the eye-witnesses and the recovery of the Mashirs there is yet another piece of evidence namely recovery of the cloth and the crime weapon which prima facie shows that the accused was involved in the offence and he accordingly opposes grant of bail to the applicant. It may be mentioned here that the learned. Sessions Judge in his order, dated 7th March, 1987 while declining bail present applicant has stated that the knife secured from the accused was not blood stained. Such observation by the Courts should be avoided at the stage of consideration of the bail application but nevertheless as there is a definite finding by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard it cannot be ignored. Since the knife which has been recovered is stated to be not blood stained and the eye- witnesses and the recovery of the Mashirs have totally denied the involvement of the accused the case of present applicant would call for further enquiry within the meaning of section 497, Cr.P.C. I accordingly admit the applicant to bail in the sum of Rs, fifty thousand with one surety and P.R. In the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.