detention already undergone, unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that there was some dispute regarding money which was not being given by the complainant to the appellant, which fact has also been came in the bail rejection order, thus, there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that due to dispute of money the appellant has been implicated in the case falsely with malafide intention; further in the injury report five injuries were shown, but nothing has come in the C.T. Scan report on the vital part of the complainant which would be dangerous to his life, thus, there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that false injury report has been prepared, therefore, provision of Section 307 I.P.C. as mentioned in the charge sheet is not attracted; there appears also force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no any independent eye witness of the alleged incident and the appellant has been roped in the case falsely due to enmity and with malafide intention; 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 learned trial court has failed to appreciate the material available on record. Thus, the impugned bail rejection order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
