Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52121 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42066 of 2023 Applicant :- Amit Mishra @ Chhote Lalla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Mishra Gana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Saxena Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. 2. By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Amit Mishra alias Chhote Lalla, who is involved in Case Crime No. 102 of 2022, under Sections 458, 363, 366, 376, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27001 of 2022. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2022, but till date his trial has not been concluded, therefore, considering the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that all the three prosecution witnesses of fact including the victim have been examined before the trial court and statements of four formal prosecution witnesses have also been recorded. First bail application of the applicant was rejected considering the statement of the victim (PW-1) who has supported the prosecution case making allegation of committing rape on her against the applicant. It is also pointed out that vide order dated 11.01.2023, direction was given to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant, expeditiously, preferably within a period of nine months, but said order was not filed by the accused applicant before the trial court. 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, therefore, considering the gravity of offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the victim in her statement recorded during investigation as well as before the trial court has made allegation of rape against the applicant. The offence is heinous in nature. The trial of the applicant is going on, in which seven prosecution witnesses out of fifteen prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Considering the statement of the victim as well as stage of trial, as noted above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8. However, considering the detention period of the applicant Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit is directed to ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court so that trial of the applicant may be concluded at the earliest. 9. It is further directed that on appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statements on the same day and opportunity of cross-examination shall also be given in continuation of their examination-in-chief. 10. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit as well as to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad