Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114166 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40343 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashiq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tiwari,Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- Atul Kumar Tiwari,G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. The First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40535 of 2022. By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant- Ashiq, who is involved in Case Crime No.0268 of 2022, under Sections 376, 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. Brief facts of the case, which are required that the informant, who is the father of the victim got a first information report lodged on 12.4.2022 regarding an incident, which took place on 27.3.2022 against Ashiq (applicant), Sunil, Sunita and Shivam with the allegations inter alia that after enticing his minor daughter, accused-applicant has been committing rape upon her for the last one year and when the first informant came to know about this affairs, he made a complaint to the parents of the applicant, but in vain. On 27.3.2022 at about 5.30 PM, Ashiq, Sunil, Sunita and Shivam barged into the house of the informant, abused and beaten the first informant and his family members. Accused Shivam has cut the wrist of left hand of Deepa. While going, they also threatened the informant of dire consequences. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that since the victim was inclined to marry with one Nitin, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that victim in her cross-examination has stated inter-alia that before this case, applicant had been talking to her for a year, therefore she was beaten and because of this her father lodged F.I.R. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.04.2022, therefore, considering the detention period, he may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the statement of victim has been recorded before the trial court as P.W.-2 on 19.07.2024 wherein she in her examination-in-chief has made specific allegation of rape on her against the present applicant-Ashiq. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that victim during investigation in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her examination-in-chief recorded before the trial court has made allegation of rape against the applicant supporting the prosecution case. So far as submission on behalf of the applicant that victim in her cross-examination has stated that since applicant had been talking to her for a year, therefore his father had lodged F.I.R. is concerned, this court is of the view that conclusion from the statement of any witness shall be drawn by the trial Court considering his/her statement in toto not in isolation. The Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Mishra (1996) 10 SCC 360 has also settled the law if there are contradiction in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of any prosecution witness, the conviction is also possible on the basis of examination-in-chief, if the same is of sterling quality and is being supported from other material on record and attending circumstances. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court is not examining the statement of victim meticulously and no finding is being recorded on merit so that it may not affect the merits of the case. From the record, I also find that up-to 06.09.2024, four prosecution witnesses have been examined. Therefore, with the laps of time, some other prosecution witnesses must have also been examined before the trial court. Considering that the offence of rape is heinous in nature, statement of victim and stage of trial as well as the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539. I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected. However, considering the detention period of the applicant, it is directed that Superintendent of Police, Hapur shall ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court so that the trial of the applicant may be concluded at the earliest. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statement on same day without granting any adjournment to either of the parties and make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Hapur within three days for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Sanjeet Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad