Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129286 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49878 of 2023 Applicant :- Koshindar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State of U.P. 2-By means of this second bail application, applicant- Koshindar who is involved in Case Crime No. 59 of 2021, under Sections 302 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kithore, District Meerut seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49497 of 2022. 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the statement of Kamlesh (complainant) and Narendra, who are said to be the eye witnesses of the incident has been recorded before the trial court as PW-1 and PW-2, however, from their statement, only conclusion can be drawn that they were not the eye witnesses of the incident, as such, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 23.02.2021 is liable to be released on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed by contending that the role of causing stab wound in the stomach of the deceased has been attributed to the applicant-Koshindar. The blood stained knife has also been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant, on which human blood was found. It is also submitted that PW-1 and PW-2, in their statement recorded before the trial court, have supported the prosecution case, hence, the 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 trial of the applicant is in progress and seven prosecution witnesses have been testified. No prosecution witness has been declared hostile. So far as the statement of prosecution witnesses are concerned, this Court is of the view that conclusion of the statement of any witness shall be drawn considering his/her entire statement as a whole, not in isolation by picking up some words from here and there. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused is still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not scrutinizing the statement of the prosecution witnesses meticulously so that it may not affect the trial of the applicant. However, this Court is of the view that the offence is heinous in nature. In the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8-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. 9-However considering the detention period of the applicant, Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut 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 earliest. 10-On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, their statement shall be recorded on the same day without granting adjournment to either of the parties. The opportunity of cross-examination to the accused shall also be given in continuation of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses. 11-Copy of this order be communicated to Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut as well as to the concerned trial court within 48 hours for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad