After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering that there is contradiction in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the first information report; allegation of rape is not supported by any medical evidence as the doctor in the medical examination report of the prosecutrix has opined that there is no external or internal injury found on the person of the prosecutrix; radiological age of the prosecutrix was about 16 years and as per her educational certificate her age was 17 years, 10 months and 24 days at the time of alleged incident; co-accused Zeeshan and Tasleem, against whom same allegation was levelled, have already been granted bail by this Court, hence the applicant claims parity with the bail orders of the aforesaid co-accused; and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
