HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32598 of 2024 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. By means of this second bail application, applicant- Mohammad Sakib, who is involved in Case Crime No. 287 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 386 I.P.C. and Section 67A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19800 of 2023. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that statement of the victim has been recorded before the trial court as PW-1 on 12.11.2024. Though in examination-in-chief, she has supported the prosecution case and made allegation of rape etc. on her against the applicant, but there are some contradictions in her cross- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dan Bahadur, Firoz Haider, Yashwant Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Mishra, Ajay Kumar Kushwaha, G.A. Mohammad Sakib .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) examination, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 27.07.2022 may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that there are six prosecution witnesses of charge-sheet, out of which three prosecution witnesses including the complainant and the victim have been examined and they have supported the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief. There is no material contradiction, hence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as before the trial court has made serious allegation of rape etc. against the applicant giving vivid description of the incident. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that there are some contradictions in cross-examination of the victim is concerned, I find that there are no such contradictions which go into the root of the prosecution case so as to demolish the entire prosecution case, hence, the same are immaterial. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court is not recording any finding about the statement of prosecution witnesses, so that trial of the applicant may not be affected. However, in the light of statement of the victim, who has made allegation of rape against the applicant, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, considering the detention period of the applicant, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously without granting any adjournment to BAIL No. 32598 of 2024 2 either of the parties. Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj shall ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court. 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 to the defence shall also be given in continuation of examination- in-chief. Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj as well as to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. September 24, 2025 Kashifa BAIL No. 32598 of 2024 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad