HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4775 of 2024 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant. By means of this second bail application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 503 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366A, 376(3) IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, police station Sahaswan, district Budaun, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9547 of 2022. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.12.2021, but his trial has not been concluded and, therefore, considering the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her statement given before the trial court has made allegation of rape against the applicant giving vivid description of the incident. It is also pointed out that as on date three, out of eight prosecution witnesses, including the victim have been examined. Therefore, considering the statement of the victim recorded before the trial court, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Pintu .....Applicant(s) State Of Up 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that it is not in dispute that the victim has made allegation of rape on her against the applicant before the trial court. The offence is heinous in nature and trial of the applicant is proceeding, hence in the light of the statement of the victim as well as considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in X Vs State of Rajasthan and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage. However, considering the detention of the applicant, the Superintendent of Police, Budaun is directed to ensure the presence of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the date fixed before the trial court. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statements on the same day without granting any adjournment and opportunity of cross-examination shall be given in continuation of the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Budaun as well as concerned trial court for information and compliance. October 9, 2025 Ishrat BAIL No. 4775 of 2024 2 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad