It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations made in the first information report lodged on 4th March, 2017 by Parveen Jahan, mother of the victim, namely, Mohd. Chand, the applicant came to the house of the first informant and took the victim along with him in Jungle, where he sexually assaulted him. It has further been the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to petty dispute between the parties. Allegations of sexual assault upon the victim by the applicant are not corroborated by the medical examination report of the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant, drawing the attention of the Court to the order-sheet of the court below, copies of which are on record as Annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today, has further argued that two prosecution witnesses of facts, namely, P.W.-1 i.e. the informant and P.W.-2 i.e. the victim have been recorded on 25th July, 2018 and 5th October, 2018 respectively and thereafter nothing has been done, which goes to show that the trial shall not be concluded in near future. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the applicant has also pressed the issue of period of detention of the applicant i.e. 5th March, 2017, who has undergone more than two years and one one month of incarceration. He, therefore, submits that considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 no useful purpose would be
