Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88512 Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17611 of 2025 Applicant :- Bajrangi Yadav Alias Deepak Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Kushwaha,Shad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Srivastava learned AGA for the State as also perused the material placed on record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Bajrangi Yadav Alias Deepak Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. - 690 of 2016, under Sections - 342, 376(2)(i)(n), 323 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj, during pendency of trial. 3. This is third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. First bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 06.12.2019 for want of prosecution. Second bail application was disposed of vide the following order dated 05.4.2024: "1. Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant - Bajranji Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 690 of 2016, under Sections - 342, 376(2)(1)(N), 323 I.P.C. & 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station - Handia, District - Allahabad, during pendency of trial. 3. Against the FIR lodged on 11.11.2016, the applicant is in confinement since 12.10.2017. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the record, it is noted, direct allegation of rape has been made against the present applicant in the FIR. The victim has supported the allegation at all stages i.e. in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as also she has supported the prosecution story at the trial. At trial the first informant, victim and her mother have already been examined. As to the reasons for pendency of trial, learned counsel for the applicant states, at present, an application has been filed by the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking further cross examination of the victim. Also, the oral testimony of the formal witness is pending. 5. In such facts, though the applicant has remained confined for more than six years. No case for bail is made at this stage. At the same time, six year time was enough for the trial to have been concluded. 6. Keeping in mind the stage of the trial, present bail application is disposed of with a direction, subject to the applicant filing a copy of this order before the learned court below, the learned court below may ensure to conclude the trial proceedings within the next six months. 7. The applicant further undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings. 8. If the trial remains pending for more than six months (till 31.03.2025), the applicant may remain entitled to apply for bail afresh. At that stage, the applicant may bring on record the order sheet of the case from today onwards." 4. Today, it has been stated, trial has remained pending for more than eight years. There is no hope of early conclusion of the trial inasmuch as the victim is not participating at the trial and is not allowing her further cross-examination to arise. At the same time, the applicant has remained confined since 12.10.2017 i.e. for more than 7 1/2 years. 5. As to the age of the victim, it has been further stated that according to the defence, she was more than 19 years of age on the date of occurrence. Thus, element of consent has been cited. In any case, it has been asserted, no offence under POCSO may be made out against the applicant if the medical age of the victim were to be considered. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA states, no new ground has been made out to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it may be noted that the trial has not concluded within time indicated in the order dated 05.4.2024. Also there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. The applicant has remained confined for more than 7 1/2 years. Keeping in mind that the applicant has no criminal history and all issues of fact are yet to be ascertained at the trial, it appears that the applicant has become entitled to bail, at this stage as no accused may be forever confined till conclusion of the trial which is taking indefinite time period. 8. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 9. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall stand cancelled. 10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 11. Bail application stands allowed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Faraz (S. D. Singh, J.) Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad