HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27244 of 2023 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant. 2. By means of this second bail application, the applicant Raja @ Rajaram, who is involved in Case Crime No. 167 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376D, 504 I.P.C., police station Halia, district Mirzapur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 12.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51489 of 2022. 3. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2022, but his trial has not been concluded and, therefore, considering the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that examination-in-chief of the victim has been recorded, in which she has supported the prosecution case making allegation of rape against the applicant and co-accused Raj Kumar, therefore, considering the statement of the victim recorded before the trial court, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahesh Kumar Dubey, Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Prasad Mishra Raja @ Rajaram .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that it is not in dispute that victim in her statement during the investigation as well as before the learned trial court has made specific allegation of rape against the applicant and co-accused Raj Kumar. The offence is heinous in nature and trial of the applicant is proceeding, hence in the light of the statement of the victim as well as considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in X Vs State of Rajasthan and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. However, considering the detention of the applicant, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur is directed to ensure the presence of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the date fixed before the trial court. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statements on the same day without granting any adjournment and opportunity of cross-examination shall be given in continuation of the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses. 8. The trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur as well as concerned trial court for information and compliance. October 10, 2025 T.S. BAIL No. 27244 of 2023 2 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad