only 14 out o f 21 witnesses have been exa m ined so far. There is no eye - witness to th e occurrence. The case rests u p on circumstantial evidence an d no circumsta n ce connecting him with the of f ence of homicidal death of th e victim has be e n collected during the course o f investigation. The mother o f the deceased, her husband, the landlord of the premises wherein the dea d body was fo u nd, his son, as well as the complainant, have since bee n examined an d have not supported the prosec u tion version. All of them hav e turned hostile . The chances of conclusion of t rial in near future are bleak. N o useful purpos e would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. Eac h day spent by h im in custody has furnished h i m a new ground afresh to see k concession of bail. His prolonged inca r ceration militates against hi s fundamental r ights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . He is ready t o abide by the terms and cond i tions to be imposed upon him . Learned cou n sel for the petitioner has dra w n the attention of this Cour t towards the statements of PW-1 Rohit, com p lainant, PW-2 Tarawati, mothe r of the victim, PW-4 Vinod, husband of the vi c tim, PW-6 Partap Singh, owne r of the house, and PW-7 Mohit, son of Parta p Singh, copies of statements o f which have been placed on record and whic h show that all these witnesse s have not implicated the petitioner in commis s ion of the subject offences, an d has urged that the petition deserves to be exte n ded benefit of bail. 4. P er contra , learned State cou n sel has argued that there ar e serious allegations against the petitioner. The dead body of the victim wa s found in the s a me room in which she was res i ding with the present petitioner .
