HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33591 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 for the complainant. By means of this second bail application, applicant-Madan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 221 of 2021, under Sections 376D, 341, 504, 506, 354 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sarailakhansi, District Mau, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 64 of 2022. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.06.2021, but his trial has not been concluded yet, therefore, considering the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Priya Singh, G.A. Madan .....Applicant(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant by contending that out of seven prosecution witnesses, five prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the trial court and they have supported the prosecution case, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that vide order dated 18.08.2025 present status of trial of the applicant was called for from the concerned Presiding Officer, who in turn submitted the report dated 01.09.2025 mentioning inter alia that statements of Urmila, Sanjay Kumar, Dr Reema Kumari and Constable Sharad Yadav have been recorded as PW- 1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. It is also mentioned that an application was also moved on behalf of the victim for getting her statement recorded through video conferencing. Accordingly, the process was issued for recording her statement on 06.09.2025. On putting query as to whether statement of victim has been recorded on 06.09.2025 or not, learned counsel for the complainant / victim produced the statement of the victim recorded on 09.09.2025, which is taken on record. On perusal of the same, I find that victim in her examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution case making allegation inter alia of committing rape on her by applicant Madan. Cross-examination of the victim is going on. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, has held that if the trial of the accused has started, his bail should not be granted in heinous offences like murder, rape and dacoity. Hence, in the light of statement of the victim recorded before the trial court as PW-5 as well as stage of the trial, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. BAIL No. 33591 of 2024 2 It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. However, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. September 16, 2025 Kashifa BAIL No. 33591 of 2024 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad