JUDGMENT : SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Suraj Singh Visen, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. This is the second bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station-Khodhare, District-Gonda. 3. The first bail application of the applicant bearing No. 14638 of 2022 was rejected by means an order dated 22.03.2023. The second bail application has been moved on the ground that subsequent to rejection of the first bail application of applicant, the informant has been examined as PW-1 and her husband has been examined as PW-2. PW-1 has not supported the cross-examination and PW-2 has been declared to be hostile. 4. When this Court perused the statement of PW-1, which was recorded on 5 dates between 18.10.2023 and 07.08.2024, it appears that in her statement recorded on 18.10.2023, the informant fully supported the prosecution case. She stated that all the accused persons used to harass her daughter by demanding dowry. On 29.07.2022, her son-in-law Mukeem had told her that her daughter had ran away from the home at 12:00 in the night. Six days thereafter, the dead-body of the informant’s daughter was recovered from a septic tank situated in front of a Madarasa adjacent to the accused persons’ house. Her cross-examination was recorded on 21.03.2024, 23.05.2024, 05.06.2024 and 07.08.2024. She supported the prosecution case till 05.06.2024, on which date she stated that she had visited the matrimonial home of her daughter about one month’s prior to the incident and her daughter had told her that the accused persons used to harass her. However, in her cross-examination recorded on 07.08.2024, PW-1 turned turtle and started supporting the accused persons. Statement of PW-2 was recorded thereafter on 27.08.2024 and he has been declared hostile. Now the applicant is seeking his release on bail on this ground after his first bail application was rejected by a reasoned order. 5. The long period of about 10 months consumed by the trial Court in this case in recording the statement of PW-1, during which period PW-1 has sided with the accused, is very disturbing Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses need to be recorded on day-to-day basis to avoid the possibility of witnesses being influenced. 5. The long period of about 10 months consumed by the trial Court in this case in recording the statement of PW-1, during which period PW-1 has sided with the accused, is very disturbing Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses need to be recorded on day-to-day basis to avoid the possibility of witnesses being influenced. The statutory provision in this regard in contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. which is being reproduced below: “309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings: (1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under Section 376, Section 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-DA or Section 376-DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet. (2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time: Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him: Provided also that: (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party. (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment. (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment. (c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be. Explanation 1 - If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 2 - The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused. (Emphasis added) 6. In Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 604 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that “We cannot permit the trial court to flout the said mandate of Parliament unless the court has very cogent and strong reasons. No court has permission to adjourn examination of witnesses who are in attendance beyond the next working day.” 7. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the legislative mandate contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. in the following words: “11. The first sub-section mandates on the trial courts that the proceedings shall be held expeditiously but the words “as expeditiously as possible” have provided some play at the joints and it is through such play that delay often creeps in the trials. Even so, the next limb of the sub-section sounded for a more vigorous stance to be adopted by the court at a further advanced stage of the trial. That stage is when examination of the witnesses begins. The legislature which diluted the vigour of the mandate contained in the initial limb of the sub-section by using the words “as expeditiously as possible” has chosen to make the requirement for the next stage (when examination of the witnesses has started) to be quite stern. That stage is when examination of the witnesses begins. The legislature which diluted the vigour of the mandate contained in the initial limb of the sub-section by using the words “as expeditiously as possible” has chosen to make the requirement for the next stage (when examination of the witnesses has started) to be quite stern. Once the case reaches that stage the statutory command is that such examination “shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined.” The solitary exception to the said stringent rule is, if the court finds that adjournment “beyond the following day to be necessary” the same can be granted for which a condition is imposed on the court that reasons for the same should be recorded. Even this dilution has been taken away when witnesses are in attendance before the court. In such situation the court is not given any power to adjourn the case except in the extreme contingency for which the second proviso to sub-section (2) has imposed another condition “provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.” (Emphasis in original) 12. Thus, the legal position is that once examination of witnesses started, the court has to continue the trial from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom the party has given up). The court has to record reasons for deviating from the said course. Even that is forbidden when witnesses are present in court, as the requirement then is that the court has to examine them. Only if there are “special reasons”, which reasons should find a place in the order for adjournment, that alone can confer jurisdiction on the court to adjourn the case without examination of witnesses who are present in court. 13. Now, we are distressed to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that trial courts flout the said command with impunity. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flippant grounds. Adjournments are granted even in such situations on the mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are granted to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flippant grounds. Adjournments are granted even in such situations on the mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are granted to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. We make it clear that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments on that ground. At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special reason” for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the Code.” 8. This High Court issued a Circular Letter No. 20/Admin. ‘G-II’ Dated 14.05.2015, which provides as follows: 1. C.L. No. 152/VIII-b13, 28.10.1974 In continuation of marginally quoted Court’s earlier Circular Letters and in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court’s orders passed in the cases of Akil alias Javed vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (11) SCALE 709 , in Paras 27 to 36: State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and others, 2001 (4) SCC 667 ; Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar, 1999 Cri. L.J. 4541 and Lt. Col. SJ. Chaudhari vs. State (Delhi) Administration, (1984) 1 SCC 722 , I am directed to state that the High Court is noticing disturbing trend in criminal trials, where Sessions cases are being adjourned, in some cases to suit convenience of counsels or because the prosecution or the defence is not fully ready and considers it necessary to draw the attention of all the Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges once again to the provision of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directs 73 them to adhere strictly to these provisions and instructions given below while granting adjournment in Sessions Cases: 2. C.L. No. 58-50/Admn “G” 23.11.1992 3. C.L. No. 54/VIIb-18, 06.12.2000 4. C.L. No. 8/VIIb-18, 07.02.2000 5. C.L. No. C-72/1990, 26.07.1990 (1) Trial Judges are reminded of the need to comply with Section 309 of the Code in letter and spirit. (2) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: [Section 309 (1) Cr.P.C.]” *** *** *** 9. In Doongar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 13 SCC 741 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that: “8. In spite of repeated directions of this Court, the situation appears to have remained unremedied. We hope that the Presiding Officers of the trial courts conducting criminal trials will be mindful of not giving such adjournments after commencement of the evidence in serious criminal cases. We are also of the view that it is necessary in the interest of justice that the eyewitnesses are examined by the prosecution at the earliest. *** *** *** 10. To conclude: 10.1. The trial courts must carry out the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. as reiterated in judgments of this Court, inter alia, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667 , Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334 and Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 . 10.2. The eyewitnesses must be examined by the prosecution as soon as possible. 10.3. Statements of eyewitnesses should invariably be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as per procedure prescribed thereunder.” 10. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 recorded in this case, which had commenced on 18.10.2023 and continued till 07.08.2024 shows that on 18.10.2023, 21.03.2024, 23.05.2024 and 05.06.2024, PW-1 supported the prosecution case but on the last date i.e. 07.08.2024, she took u-turn and started supporting the accused. PW-2 was examined thereafter and he turned hostile. This prima facie indicates that the long period of about 10 months spent in recording the statement of prosecution witness PW-1 gave an opportunity to the accused persons to influence or win-over the prosecution witnesses. 11. In Ramesh v. State of Haryana, (2017) 1 SCC 529 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its concern about the culture of witnesses turning hostile, in the following words: “39. We find that it is becoming a common phenomenon, almost a regular feature, that in criminal cases witnesses turn hostile. There could be various reasons for this behaviour or attitude of the witnesses. It is possible that when the statements of such witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the police during investigation, the investigating officer forced them to make such statements and, therefore, they resiled therefrom while deposing in the court and justifiably so. It is possible that when the statements of such witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the police during investigation, the investigating officer forced them to make such statements and, therefore, they resiled therefrom while deposing in the court and justifiably so. However, this is no longer the reason in most of the cases. This trend of witnesses turning hostile is due to various other factors. It may be fear of deposing against the accused/delinquent or political pressure or pressure of other family members or other such sociological factors. It is also possible that witnesses are corrupted with monetary considerations. *** *** *** 44. On the analysis of various cases, the following reasons can be discerned which make witnesses retracting their statements before the court and turning hostile: (i) Threat/Intimidation. (ii) Inducement by various means. (iii) Use of muscle and money power by the accused. (iv) Use of stock witnesses. (v) Protracted trials. (vi) Hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial. (vii) Non-existence of any clear-cut legislation to check hostility of witness. 45. Threat and intimidation has been one of the major causes for the hostility of witnesses. Bentham said: “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.” When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system. It is for this reason there has been a lot of discussion on witness protection and from various quarters demand is made for the State to play a definite role in coming out with witness protection programme, at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who have political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty. A stern and emphatic message to this effect was given in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 as well.” 12. As the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case prima facie indicate that the prosecution witnesses have been influenced in the present case, no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. 13. Accordingly, the second application of the applicant is rejected.