by the police informer, the aforesaid incriminating circumstances neither singularly nor cumulatively are sufficient enough to infer the guilt of the applicant in the crime in question, since the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore, there is no eyewitness of the applicant, the complicity of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence can be inferred only in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), prima facie none of the parameters laid down in aforementioned judgement is satisfied against applicant upto this stage and also the fact that though trial of applicant commenced in the year 2020, and a period of 4 years has rolled by, not a single eyewitness has been adduced by the prosecution till date, as such the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.S. Nayak (supra), as right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused, applicant cannot be held responsible for delay in trial since he is in custody, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A., in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
