Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5924 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32283 of 2023 Applicant :- Narayan Kumar @ Ramnarayan Bind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Department Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahanshah Khan 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 second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Narayan Kumar @ Ramnarayan Bind who is involved in S.T. No. 552 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 59 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Madihan, District Mirzapur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3133 of 2023. 4. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant Suraj Bind lodged a first information report on 24.03.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. against the applicant-Narayan Kumar alleging inter alia that on 23.02.2022 at 11 P.M., the applicant who is a domineer person, has enticed away his daughter/ victim aged about 17 years. 5. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, victim was consenting party with the applicant and she was in touch with the applicant for last 4 months. They also solemnized marriage, therefore, it is not a case of rape but a case of consensual relationship between the parties concerned. It is also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.06.2023, but till date, his trial has not been concluded, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that there are twelve prosecution witnesses of the charge sheet, out of which, three prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined before the trial court. It is next submitted that victim is minor child in view of Section 2(i)(d) of POCSO Act and she in her statement (examination- in-chief) recorded before the trial court as PW-1, has supported the prosecution case making allegation inter alia of committing rape on her giving vivid description of the incident. It is also submitted that in view of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the presumption shall also be drawn against the accused unless the contrary is proved by the accused. Lastly it is submitted that recently, the Apex Court in the case of 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. Since the offence is heinous in nature and trial of the applicant has started, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is not liable to be allowed. 7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find the it is not in dispute that statements of all the prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined and only formal witnesses are yet to be examined. Victim has made allegation of rape stating inter alia that applicant forcibly removed her cloths and was pressing her breast. He kept her for a month and raped her every day. She has also disclosed that applicant's friend-Anil also committed misdeed. Since the allegation of prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not examining the statements of prosecution witnesses meticulously, so that it may not affect the merit of the trial. Hence in the light of recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is for the purpose of disposal of bail application and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 10. However considering the detention period of the applicant as noted above, the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur is directed to 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. 11. The concerned trial court is directed that on appearance of the prosecution witnesses, their statements shall be recorded on the same day without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 12. Copy of this order be communicated to Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur as well as concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad