ORDER RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no evidence is available against the petitioner.
Nobody saw the petitioner committing the offence nor any recovery of weapons has been effected at the instance of the petitioner. Submits that petitioner, at the time of occurrence was less than 13 years of age which entitles him to the concession of bail. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel lor the State as well counsel for the complainant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. According to Lite police investigation petitioner along with his co-accused were working as a painter in i.e the house. Recovery of golden ornaments has been effected from the petitioner which was identified by the witness as the property of his deceased mother.
Blood-stained clothes of the petitioner were recovered from his house. There is evidence of two witnesses who saw the petitioner with his co-accused entering the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence. Contention of the learned counsel is correct thill there is no direct evidence but I feel, print a facie. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No ground for bail is made out. Petition tails which is dismissed.