JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.183 of 2021, under Sections 365, 302, 201, 377 IPC alongwith Sections 3/4, 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the son of the informant, a young boy aged about 17 years, was sitting outside his house on 24.03.2021 at 7:00 PM, but after a while, he was not traceable. A search was made, but he could not be located. An FIR of the incident was lodged on 28.03.2021. Subsequently, his dead body was found on 29.03.2021 at a deserted place. 4. According to the prosecution, on the date of incident, the applicant took the deceased on his motorcycle. Thereafter, the deceased was missing. It is also the prosecution case that on 10.03.2022, at the instance of the applicant, a pillow was recovered which he allegedly used in killing the victim. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is no evidence case; the family members of the deceased have already been examined at the trial; they have not identified the applicant who took the deceased on his motorcycle. The dead body was found at the distance of about 50 kms. from the home of the deceased after five days. Allegedly the pillow was recovered about one year after the incident and one witness who allegedly identified the applicant was interrogated by the Investigating Officer on 13.08.2022. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that witnesses have been examined in the court. He admits that those witnesses who have been examined have not stated anything against the applicant, but he would submit that during investigation, one witness Alamjit has on 13.08.2022 to the Investigating Officer that the applicant was visible in the motorcycle taking the deceased alongwith him. 7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case. 8. The statements of 10 witnesses have been placed on record. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case. 8. The statements of 10 witnesses have been placed on record. The informant is the mother of the deceased, his father, brother and cousin, all have been examined, but they have not identified the applicant as a person who took the deceased on his motorcycle on the date of incident. The alleged recovery of a pillow was made on 10.03.2022 and long thereafter, on 13.08.2022, a witness, according to the prosecution, tells it to the Investigating Officer that he has seen the applicant taking the deceased on a motorcycle. 9. Is it a case of proximity of time and place? It is a case of circumstantial evidence. If, at all, according to the prosecution on 24.03.2021, the applicant took the deceased along with him. The dead body was found at the distance of 50 kms. that too after five days. 10. Can it be said that there was proximity of time and place? The prosecution has not attributed any motive to the applicant for killing the deceased. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.