Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24030 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10856 of 2024 Appellant :- Ram Preet Singh @ R.P. Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jagadish Prasad Yadav Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. By way of the present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act the appellants Ram Preet Singh @ R.P. Singh and Sudama Singh have approached this Court against the third bail rejection order dated 30.9.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh and to release the appellants on bail in case crime no. 319 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504, 308, 506 IPC, Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jeanpur, District Azamgarh. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/ informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The previous criminal appeals filed by the appellants praying for bail and setting aside the bail rejection orders passed by the Court concerned have been decided as dismissed on merits by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 2.8.2023, 20.9.2023 and 6.2.2024. 4. Deposition of PW-2/ injured, which was not recorded at the time of disposal of previous criminal appeals, is the new and additional ground in this criminal appeal. 5. It is submitted that at the time of disposal of previous criminal appeals by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the statement of PW-2-injured witness was not recorded before the trial court but subsequently his statement has been recorded by the learned trial court. It is further submitted that while dismissing the second criminal appeal, a coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 6.2.2024 issued a direction to the trial court to record the statement of the victim within three months and now the statement of the injured - PW-2 has been recorded before the trial Court wherein he has not supported the prosecution version and has made a categorical statement that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. Though he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution but in material terms he does not corroborate the prosecution case. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed. Previous appeals filed by the appellants have been dismissed on merits. Though learned counsel for the informant opposed the appeal but in a very slow voice conceded that the injured - PW-2 has not supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded before the Court. However, learned AGA states that in his examination-in-chief PW-2/ injured has fully corroborated the prosecution case but in the cross-examination he has made some twisted statements. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 8. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellants while deciding the bail application. 9. The Court takes notice of this fact that the examination-in-chief of Priyanshu -PW-2/ injured has been recorded before the trial court on 20.11.2024 and subsequently his rest evidence was recorded on 10.12.2024 i.e. after about 20 days and in the said part of the statement he did not support the prosecution case. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in umpteen of cases have emphasized that the evidence of a witness particularly Eye Witness / Injured Witness must be recorded on the same day in one flow because if the evidence, after recording in part, does not complete on the same day it is quite possible that the witness might be won over by the accused side. In this case, the statement of PW- 2/injured has been recorded in part and after recording his examination-in-chief his cross-examination was not recorded on the same day but it was recorded after 20 days. At the stage of bail, this Court is not expected to analyze the evidence recorded before the trial court elaborately. 10. Hence, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant, severity of punishment and the fact that previous criminal appeals have been dismissed on merits by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellants. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 12. It is made clear that the submissions / observation made in this order are only for deciding the bail application and the trial court shall not be influenced in any way with the said observations / submissions while deciding the trial. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad