JUDGMENT : Krishan Pahal, J. 1. Heard Sri Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the record. 2. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506, 452 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41070 of 2020. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT : 4. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that PW-1 Informant and PW-2 Victim have been examined in Court and they have not supported the prosecution story, as such, there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the instant case. 5. The applicant is incarcerated in jail since 13.05.2020, as such, more than 4 years have been passed. His fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated, as such, he is entitled for bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE LAW OFFICER : 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application by stating that the statement of the victim recorded by the trial court is intact as her examination-in-chief and cross examination were taken up on 18.04.2024 and she has categorically nominated the applicant to have barged into her house and committed rape with her. The said statement stands unimpeached during her cross-examination taken up the same day but the cross-examination has been deferred at the request of counsel for the applicant and further cross-examination was taken up about 2 months and 9 days thereafter i.e. on 27.06.2024 and the victim had not supported the prosecution story in it. The said act of the applicant for not completing the cross-examination the same day and deferring the matter for more than two months is an act to somehow win over the witness, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION : 7. The said act of the applicant for not completing the cross-examination the same day and deferring the matter for more than two months is an act to somehow win over the witness, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION : 7. Supreme Court, in the case of C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu 2010 INSC 553, has observed thus: “81. It is settled legal proposition that : (Khujji case, SCC p. 635, para 6) ‘6. ... the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.’ 82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360 ] this Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543 ], Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450 ], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 360 ] and Subbu Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 462 . 8. In the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab 2014 INSC 670, the Supreme Court has observed thus: “51. It is necessary, though painful, to note that PW 7 was examined-in-chief on 30-9-1999 and was cross-examined on 25-5-2001, almost after 1 year and 8 months. The delay in said cross-examination, as we have stated earlier had given enough time for prevarication due to many a reason. A fair trial is to be fair both to the defence and the prosecution as well as to the victim. An offence registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be tried with all seriousness. The delay in said cross-examination, as we have stated earlier had given enough time for prevarication due to many a reason. A fair trial is to be fair both to the defence and the prosecution as well as to the victim. An offence registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be tried with all seriousness. We fail to appreciate how the learned trial Judge could exhibit such laxity in granting so much time for cross-examination in a case of this nature. It would have been absolutely appropriate on the part of the learned trial Judge to finish the cross-examination on the day the said witness was examined. As is evident, for no reason whatsoever it was deferred and the cross-examination took place after 20 months. The witness had all the time in the world to be gained over. We have already opined that he was declared hostile and re-examined. 52. It is settled in law that the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon by the prosecution as well as the defence. In re-examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW 7 has accepted about the correctness of his statement in the court on 13-9-1999. He has also accepted that he had not made any complaint to the Presiding Officer of the court in writing or verbally that the Inspector was threatening him to make a false statement in the court. It has also been accepted by him that he had given the statement in the court on account of fear of false implication by the Inspector. He has agreed to have signed his statement dated 13-9-1999 after going through and admitting it to be correct. It has come in the re-examination that PW 7 had not stated in his statement dated 13-9-1999 in the court that recovery of tainted money was not effected in his presence from the accused or that he had been told by the Inspector that amount has been recovered from the accused. He had also not stated in his said statement that the accused and witnesses were taken to the Tehsil and it was there that he had signed all the memos. 53. Reading the evidence in entirety, PW 7's evidence cannot be brushed aside. The delay in cross-examination has resulted in his prevarication from the examination-in-chief. He had also not stated in his said statement that the accused and witnesses were taken to the Tehsil and it was there that he had signed all the memos. 53. Reading the evidence in entirety, PW 7's evidence cannot be brushed aside. The delay in cross-examination has resulted in his prevarication from the examination-in-chief. But, a significant one, his examination-in-chief and the re-examination impels us to accept the testimony that he had gone into the octroi post and had witnessed about the demand and acceptance of money by the accused. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had not gone with Baj Singh to the Vigilance Department at any time and no recovery was made in his presence. The said part of the testimony, in our considered view, does not commend acceptance in the backdrop of entire evidence in examination-in-chief and the re-examination. xxx xxx xxx 57. Before parting with the case we are constrained to reiterate what we have said in the beginning. We have expressed our agony and anguish for the manner in which trials in respect of serious offences relating to corruption are being conducted by the trial courts: 57.1. Adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by the counsel, even though the witness is present in court, contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart, after the examination-in-chief of a witness is over, adjournment is sought for cross-examination and the disquieting feature is that the trial courts grant time. The law requires special reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same is not taken note of. 57.2. As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurise the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics. 57.3. There is no cavil over the proposition that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court while conducting the trial is to be guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of the material brought on record. If an accused for his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it cannot be countenanced. If an accused for his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it cannot be countenanced. The court has a sacred duty to see that the trial is conducted as per law. If adjournments are granted in this manner it would tantamount to violation of the rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a farce. It is legally impermissible and jurisprudentially abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to follow the command of the procedure relating to trial and not yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons. 57.4. In fact, it is not at all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial. 57.5. The duty of the court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safeguarded. It is distressing to note that despite series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment, continues. How long shall we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There is a constant discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the High Courts for circulating the same among the learned trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot be allowed to be lonely; a destitute.” 9. A similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 INSC 148 . 10. Let it be remembered that law cannot be allowed to be lonely; a destitute.” 9. A similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 INSC 148 . 10. In the present case, it appears that, on account of a long gap of two months and nine days between the examination-in-chief and cross examination, the witness was won over by the accused and she resiled from the version as deposed in the examination-in-chief which fully incriminates the accused. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and the facts as narrated above by learned State Law Officer, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment. 14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.