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 the fact that there are vast contradictions in the statements of the alleged eye witnesses who alleged to be the eye witnesses as per the first information report; there is vast contradiction in the statement of the complainant and in the F.I.R.; the sole eye witness, namely, Dharamveer Singh, as alleged by the alleged eye witnesses, Jandail and Ramprakash, S/o Hardwari, has also not supported the prosecution case and his statement is contradictory; the first information report was lodged against four persons including the applicant on similar allegations but after investigation the Investigating Officer has dropped the names of other three accused persons and submitted the charge sheet only against the applicant, which too, without considering the statements of witnesses and the material available on record; it appears that applicant has been implicated only on the basis that the dead body was found in the Atta Chakki of the applicant; nothing has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant;and 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 U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
