Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51028 Court No. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27359 of 2024 Applicant :- Govind Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ritesh Singh,Suresh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. 1. This Court is convened through Video Conferencing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. As per office report dated 20.10.2024, notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally. However, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. 4. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40081 of 2022. 5. The instant second application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Govind Singh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.583 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Madnapur, District Shahjahanpur during pendency of the trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case because of his prior acquaintance with the victim. Initially a first information report came to be lodged against three named accused persons including the present applicant under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. only. However, after recovery of the victim, Section 376 I.P.C. came to be added and charge sheet was filed against the present applicant also. His further submission is that the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. would reveal that the victim left her house voluntarily. She was not enticed away by the present applicant. Therefore, no evidence is available against the present applicant. The accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2021, who has no previous criminal history. Therefore, also having regard to his period of incarceration, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. His further submission is that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that this is the second bail application and the first bail application was rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 03.02.2023. There is no new change in the circumstances of the case. His further submission is that the victim on the date of the incident, according to her educational certificate, is reported to be about 13 years, which is a tender age. The victim, in her statements has specifically stated that she was raped by the present applicant also. He, thus, submits that having regard to the aforesaid fact, the present applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State, upon perusal of the record and without adverting to the merits of the matter, the trial of the case is underway and six witnesses of fact have already been examined; it is needless to mention that this is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 03.02.2023, and no new ground for enlarging the applicant on bail exists. Therefore, the prayer for second bail deserves to be rejected. 10. Accordingly, the instant second application for bail is rejected. 11. It is needless to mention that this Court, while rejecting the first bail application vide order dated 03.02.2023, had directed the trial Court to expedite the trial of the case by observing the provisions of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, it is expected that the learned trial Court shall comply with the provisions of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act and proceed to dispose of the trial expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment. 12. It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail. 13. S.S.P./S.P. and Joint Director Prosecution of the district concerned are directed to ensure that witnesses are present on the date fixed so that their testimonies may be recorded without there being any hindrance. 14. Office is directed to communicate this order to S.S.P./S.P. and Joint Director Prosecution of the district concerned as well as trial Court concerned separately for its necessary compliance through E- mail/Fax, forthwith. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) Order Date :- 8.4.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad