Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77120 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47560 of 2024 Applicant :- Vardan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this third bail application, applicant- Vardan, who is involved in Session Trial No. 585 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 184 of 2021, under Sections 302, 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. First and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 22.02.2023 and 15.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 41435 of 2022 and 28184 of 2023 respectively. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that before the trial court eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of which, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11, who are prosecution witnesses of fact, have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 10.09.2021 may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in this case F.I.R. was lodged on 10.09.2021, whereas statement of prosecution witnesses have been recorded after much delay on 08.08.2022, 08.07.2024, 11.07.2024, 22.07.2024, 15.01.2025, 22.01.2025, 28.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 respectively, therefore, possibility of winning over the prosecution witnesses from the accused side cannot be ruled out. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that all the prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined before the trial court and trial of the applicant is at the advanced stage. Since the allegation of the prosecution and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court is not examining the statements of prosecution witnesses meticulously and not recording any finding so that trial of the applicant may not be affected. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the X vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, has held that if the trial of the accused has started, his bail should not be granted in heinous offences like murder, rape and dacoity, therefore, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. However, considering the detention period of the applicant as noted above, Superintendent of Police, Shamli is directed to ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court. 10. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statements on the same day without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 11. Opportunity of cross-examination to the defence shall also be afforded in continuation of examination- in-chief. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Shamli and concerned trial court within three days for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 12.5.2025/Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad