JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lal Mani Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Manish Goyal, learned A.A.G. assisted by Mr. Vikas Sahay, learned A.G.A for State. 2. The applicant before this Court is a police officer. First bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed and reasoned order dated 21.09.2021 passed by this Court and relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinafter:- "46. The discussion aforesaid certainly goes to show that the nature of offence and amount of culpability is serious, heinous, shocking and unprecedented. It is also evident that the main accused persons had prior information of the police raid and naturally, in the present set of facts, this information was revealed by police which not only made the main accused persons alert but also provided them fullest opportunity to prepare for attack and commit such a horrendous crime in which 8 police personnels including the Circle Officer sustained gunshot injuries and died. The situation of crime was such and so sudden that the police force could not get opportunity to sustain and counter and could do nothing. The accusation against the accused-applicants is that they conspired with the main accused for the commission of the offence because of their good relationship and loyalty with main accused and also they wanted to score their personal grudge with the Circle Officer. It is not possible to give a final opinion at this stage. Certain witnesses who were part of the police raid have given evidence against the accused-applicants showing their closeness with the main accused persons which is supported by circumstances such as the magnitude of the crime and the preparedness on the part of gangster Vikas Dubey and his associates; the statement of Vikas Dubey given to the IO before his death that he had prior information about the raid; the conduct of the accused-applicants before and during incident; applicant Vinay Kumar Tiwari though leading one team but did not give any backup support nor sustained any injury and showed complete inaction; and applicant K K Sharma deliberately avoided in participating in raid and the accusation is that he stayed and was deliberately left on police station to pass information to the gangster. 47. 47. In view of the above discussion, the serious and heinous nature of the offence, complicity of the accused-applicants in the conspiracy and taking into consideration overall circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason sufficient to allow the bail applications. Hence, the bail applications of accused-applicants Vinay Kumar Tiwari and K. K. Sharma are rejected." 3. Second bail application of the applicant was rejected by an order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Court which is reproduced hereinafter:- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. This is second bail application of applicant-K.K. Sharma (Krishna Kumar Sharma) for enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 353, 333, 332 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/4 Explosive Substance Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar. Applicant's first bail application was rejected by a reasoned order dated 21.09.2021. 3. This Court vide order dated 15.03.2023 has sought status report of Trial. Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat has submitted a report that examination-in-chief of PW-1 is concluded and matter is at the stage of his cross-examination, however, due to strike of Advocates it is not concluded. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that prosecution has proposed as many as 102 witnesses, therefore, trial may not be concluded in near future. 5. Learned AGA appearing for State submits that first bail application was rejected on 21.09.2021 and trial is proceeding and there is no subsequent ground for consideration in this bail application. 6. Taking note of above submissions and that first bail application was rejected by a detailed and reasoned order as well as taking note of allegations that during a raid, police force was encountered by the gangster Vikas Dubey and members of his gang in a very planned way, wherein eight police personnel were brutally killed and several police personnel sustained serious firearm injuries and that it is not a case of prolong detention, therefore, the application is dismissed as this stage. However, applicant is at liberty that in case trial is not concluded within a reasonable time, he may renew his bail application before Trial Court. " 4. However, applicant is at liberty that in case trial is not concluded within a reasonable time, he may renew his bail application before Trial Court. " 4. In pursuance of order dated 25.06.2024 of this Court learned Trial Court has submitted a status report dated 05.07.2024 that testimony of 2 witnesses out of proposed 102 witnesses have already been recorded. According to Mr. Manish Goyal, learned A.A.G some more witnesses have been examined. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in testimony of prosecution witnesses recorded so far, no role has been assigned to the applicant that he has passed the information of raid to the main accused (who died later on). He submits that some of the accused who were also not named in the FIR have been granted bail and applicant is in jail since 08.07.2020 i.e. more than 4 years and trial is not likely to be concluded within a short period. 6. Learned A.A.G assisted by learned A.G.A has opposed the above submissions and referred the above referred reasons mentioned while rejecting previous bail applications of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel submits that at this stage the Court may not go into the nature of the evidence, since material witnesses are still to be examined which are about 22 in number. He further submits that still there is a likelihood that in case bail is granted to the applicant, he will try to influence the witnesses. 7. I have considered the above submissions as well as that the applicant is in jail since for last 4 years, however, considering the role assigned to applicant as well as the above referred observations of this Court, there are very serious charges against the applicant. Being a police officer he has misused the trust which has led to death of his colleagues. The trial is proceeding, witnesses are subject to detailed cross-examination. As rightly pointed out by learned A.A.G for State that at this stage the Court may not venture into evidence led before the learned Trial Court. Considering the nature of allegations and nature of occurrence the period behind the bars undergone by the applicant cannot be considered as a prolonged detention. Accordingly, this application rejected with an observation that the applicant will have a liberty to file fresh bail application, after a period of 6 months, along with status of trial.