Ajay Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) Thru Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. (S.C.B.)

The first application No. 4145/2023 was rejected by means of a detailed order passed by this Court on 17.03.2025 dealing with the various factual aspects of the matter.

Pressing the second bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that while rejecting the first bail application, this Court has not taken into consideration various factors mentioned in the charge sheet. Paragraphs 6, 7 & 10 of the order dated 17.03.2025 are being reproduced below wherein this Court has dealt with the relevant aspects of the 3 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 charge sheet and the role assigned to the applicant: - “6. The C.B.I. completed the investigation and has submitted a charge sheet on 22.02.2022 under Section 34 read with Sections 302, 330, 331, 218 read with Section 120-B IPC in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Lucknow against 19 police officials, including the applicant, who was posted as S.H.O. Baksha. The applicant has surrendered to custody on 02.12.2021.

It is mentioned in the charge sheet that an information regarding a girl having gone missing from Village Abhay Chand Patti was received in Police Station Baksha between 07.45 to 08.00 p.m. on 11.02.2021. The applicant and some other police persons had gone away from the police station to find out and recover the missing girl. The deceased was interrogated by the SOG Team in the police station while the applicant was away. The applicant had taken away the deceased to his house at about 12-12.30 a.m. in the intervening night of 11/12.02.2021 for making recoveries and at that time the deceased was not able to stand on his own legs and he was crying, asking his mother to save him and he expressed an apprehension that the police persons will kill him. Thereafter the deceased complained of pain in his abdomen. He was taken to the Community Health Centre, Naupedwa Jaunpur at about 1.30 a.m. on 12.02.2021. As his condition was very serious and his pulse and B.P. could not be detected he was referred to District Hospital Jaunpur at about 1.55 a.m. He reached District Hospital Jaunpur at 3.35 a.m. on 12.02.2021 where he was declared brought dead on arrival. * * *

10. The charge sheet mentions that the actual cause of death of Krishna @ Pujari was the injuries inflicted due to brutal beating by the accused police officials. The for major penalty has been departmental action recommended against the three doctors who had prepared postmortem examination report dated 12.02.2021. The applicant is said to have prepared a bogus fard/arrest memo in his handwriting after the death of the deceased stating that he was intercepted by police persons in the night of 11.02.2021 at about 9.50 p.m. from Pakdi Chauraha while he was passing by on his white Apache motorcycle and he confessed having committed a robbery and thereafter at his instance Rs.63,500/- and 13 mobile 4 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 phones were recovered from his person/house. In order to explain the injuries on the body of the deceased it was falsely mentioned in the arrest memo that the deceased had stated that he had met with an accident at about 2.00 p.m. on 11.02.2021 and thereafter he was beaten by some persons. The applicant/SHO is said to have manipulated with the records by making entries number 5 and 6 in the general diary of police station Baksha with intent to cover up the illegal acts of accused police officials and to save them from legal action. This manipulated entry in the general diary was made from the user id of the applicant.”

7. The reasons for rejection of the first bail application of the applicant are summarized in paragraph 22 of the order dated

17.03.2025, which is being reproduced below: - the aforesaid “22. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears at this stage is that the applicant was posted as SHO of Police Station Baksha, in which the victim was kept in custody and was assaulted brutally, resulting in his death. The arrest memo prepared by the applicant mentions that the deceased was taken into custody at about 10.25 p.m. on 11.02.2021 from Pakdi Chauraha, whereas the brother of the deceased had sent a whatsapp message to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur at 05.39 p.m. on 11.02.2021 stating that his brother had been taken away by the police and he apprehended that his brother might be entangled in some false case. This contradiction indicates that the applicant has prepared false arrest memo. The charge sheet alleges that the applicant has made manipulations in the general diary of the police station. The victim was brutally beaten up in custody resulting in his custodial death. Being the Station House Officer the applicant was responsible for the treatment given to the deceased while in custody. The panel consisting of three doctors who had conducted the postmortem report had given a wrong report mentioning that the deceased died due to myocardial infarction and disciplinary proceedings has been ordered to be initiated against those doctors for this reason. Bail applications of co-accused persons Parva Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Verma and Ramkrit Yadav, who are also police officials/members of SOG team have been rejected by this court. Co-accused Jitendra Singh was granted bail by this court but his bail application has been rejected by 5 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of an order dated 12.03.2024, passed in SLP (Crl.) No.9816 of 2023.”

Moreover, a second bail application cannot be argued like an application for review of the order rejecting the first bail application. While deciding the second bail application, the consideration should be based on the developments subsequent to rejection of the first bail application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.12.2021 and during this period only two prosecution witnesses have been examined. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India vs K.A. Najeeb: (2021) 3 SCC 713, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

16. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India12, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.

There is no dispute against the proposition that the delay in conclusion of trial ordinarily makes out a ground for grant of bail to an accused person but even while deciding an application for release of an accused person on bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial, the court has to look into the peculiar facts of each case.

However, in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi): 6 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -

61. To read Najeeb (supra) as mandating bail solely on account of prolonged incarceration, irrespective of the statutory context or the nature of the allegations, would be to attribute to the decision a consequence it neither intended nor supports. Such a construction would also lead to an interpretive absurdity, whereby a special to address offences statute enacted by Parliament implicating the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the State would stand effectively neutralised by the mere passage of time, even at a pre-trial stage. Such an outcome cannot be countenanced in constitutional adjudication. Accordingly, the finding in Najeeb (supra) is properly situated as a constitutional safeguard to be invoked in appropriate cases, and not as a mathematical formula of universal application.

In the present case, the applicant was posted as the Station House Officer of the Police Station where the deceased – who was a young man aged about 24 years, was brought, beaten up in custody badly, was not given medical treatment timely and consequently he died in custody. The applicant is said to have made false entries in the general diary. The post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by a panel of three doctors who submitted a patently false report and falsehood of the post mortem examination report has been established by the opinion of Director, Medico Legal, State Medico Legal Cell, U.P. as well as by the opinion of a medical board consisting of experts of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. These facts show that the applicant had grossly misused his position as the Station House Officer of the Police Station and has influenced the investigation as well as the witnesses. Therefore, the applicant fails the tripod test for grant of bail.

The bail application of one of the co-accused person Ramkrit Yadav, who was a police personnel working at Surveillance Cell Jaunpur, has been rejected by means of an order dated 17.08.2022 passed by a coordinate bench of this 7 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 Court at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10162 of 2022. In the aforesaid order dated 17.08.2022, this Court has observed as follows:- “19. Custodial violence, custodial torture and custodial deaths have always been a concern for civilized society. Times and again the judicial verdicts of the Apex Court and other Courts have shown their concern and anguish in such matters. 18. In the celebrated case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal : (1997) 1 SCC 416 the Apex Court while Page No.4 of 14 expressing its anguish in cases of custodial deaths has observed as follows:- "22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic "No". The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

23. In Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 (to which Anand, J. was a party) this Court pointed out that prisoners and detenues are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights of the arrestees and detenues. It was observed: (SCC p. 767, para 31) 8 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 "It is axiomatic that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials or other prisoners in custody, except according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law. "

24. Instances have come to our notice where the police has arrested a person without warrant in connection with the investigation of an offence, without recording the arrest, and the arrested person has been subjected to torture to extract information from him for the purpose of further investigation or for recovery of case property or for extracting confession etc. The torture and injury caused on the body of the arrestee has sometimes resulted into his death. Death in custody is not generally shown in the records of the lock-up and every effort is made by the police to dispose of the body or to make out a case that the arrested person died after he was released from custody. Any complaint against such torture or death is generally not given any attention by the police officers because of ties of brotherhood. No first information report at the instance of the victim or his kith and kin is generally entertained and even the higher police officers turn a blind eye to such complaints. Even where a formal prosecution is launched by the victim or his kith and kin, no direct evidence is available to substantiate the charge of torture or causing hurt resulting into death, as the police lock-up where generally torture or injury is 9 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 caused is away from the public gaze and the witnesses are either police men or co-prisoners who are highly reluctant to appear as prosecution witnesses due to fear of retaliation by the superior officers of the police. It is often seen that when a complaint is made against torture, death or injury, in police custody, it is difficult to secure evidence against the policemen responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they are in charge of police station records Page No.6 of 14 which they do not find difficult to manipulate. Consequently, prosecution against the delinquent officers generally results in acquittal. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 262 is an apt case illustrative of the observations made by us above. ........."

19. Further in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another: (2003) 7 SCC 749 the Apex Court has again shown its anguish in the matters of custodial violence, torture and abuse of police powers. It has been observed as follows:- "If you once forfeit the confidence of our fellow citizens you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time", said Abraham Lincoln. This Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1980 (3) SCC 70), took note of these immortal observations (SCC p. 72, para 4) while deprecating custodial torture by the police.

2. Custodial violence, torture and abuse of police power are not peculiar to this country, but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which marked the emergence of a worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights stipulates in Article 5 that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment". Despite this pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though every civilized nation shows its concern and makes efforts for its eradication.

3. If it is assuming alarming proportions, now a days, all around it is merely on account of the devilish devices adopted by those at the helm of affairs who proclaim from roof tops to be the defenders of democracy and protectors of people's rights and yet do not hesitate to condescend 10 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 behind the screen to let loose their men in uniform to settle personal scores, ignorance of what happens and pretending to be peace loving puritans and saviours of citizens' rights. feigning

4. Article 21 which is one of the luminary provisions in the Page No.7 of 14 Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution") and is a part of the scheme for fundamental rights occupies a place of pride in the Constitution. The article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This sacred and cherished right i.e. personal liberty has an important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State or its functionaries. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") deals with the powers of arrest of persons and the safeguards required to be followed by the police to protect the interest of the arrested person. Articles 20 (3) and 22 of the Constitution further manifest the constitutional protection extended to every citizen and the guarantees held out for making life meaningful and not a mere animal existence. It is therefore difficult torture and custodial violence can be permitted to defy the rights flowing from the Constitution. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in custody which have assumed alarming proportions raise serious questions about the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system. The community rightly gets disturbed. The cry for justice becomes louder and warrants immediate remedial measures. This Court has in a large number of cases expressed concern at the atrocities perpetuated by the protectors of law. Justice Brandies' observation which have become classic are in following immortal words: to comprehend how the whole people by Government as the omnipotent and omnipresent teacher teaches Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law into himself. (In Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438, US at p. 485, quoted in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, US at p. 659) its example,

5. The diabolic recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new and unwarranted peril because guardians of law destroy the human rights by 11 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 custodial violence and torture and invariably resulting in death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic torture when functionaries of the State whose paramount duty is to protect the citizens and not to commit gruesome offences against them, in reality perpetrate them. The concern which was shown in Raghubir Singh case (1980 (3) SCC 70) more than two decades back seems to have fallen to leaf ears and the situation does not seem to be showing any noticeable change. The anguish expressed in Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U. P. (AIR 1990 SC 709), Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1992 (3) SCC 249), Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 1960), Pratul Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 100), Kewal Pati (Smt.) v. State of U. P. and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 600), Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 702), State of M. P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors. (1995 (4) SCC 262) and by now celebrated decision in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC 416) seems to have caused not even any softening attitude to the inhuman approach in dealing with persons in custody.

6. Rarely, in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues - and the present case is an apt illustration - as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter.

7. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities, the fact-situation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system suspect and vulnerable. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged. Tortures in police custody, which of late are on the increase, receive encouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach at times of the courts as well because it reinforces the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to them if one prisoner dies in 12 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 the lockup because there Page No.9 of 14 would hardly be any evidence available to the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture. The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of crimes in a civilized society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilized society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognized by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/under - trial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in "khaki" to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady of the very fence eating the crops, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken and the civilization itself would risk the consequence of heading, towards total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may tend to gradually lose faith in the efficacy of the system of judiciary itself, which if it happen will be a sad day, for anyone to reckon with. "

The applicant being accused of causing custodial death of a young man having no criminal history, of having made false entries in the general diary of the police station and of having influenced the doctors so as to obtain a false post mortem examination report, is not entitled to be granted bail on the ground of mere delay in conclusion of trial, more particularly, when the learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any major discrepancy in the statements of the two prosecution witnesses who have been examined.

Therefore, the applicant cannot be enlarged on bail merely on the ground of delay in trial.

However, expeditious conclusion of trial is a fundamental right of an accused person who is in custody. In this regard, Section 309 Cr.P.C. provides as follows: - “309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.-(1) In 13 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: the court finds 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; (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 14 BAIL No.

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 U.P. 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. 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 15 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 "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. even on reasons or

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 flippant grounds. Adjournments are granted even in such situations on the mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are granted 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. " the convenience of to suit

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-b- In continuation of marginally quoted Court' 16 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 13, 28.10.1974 earlier Circular Letters and in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court's orders passed in the cases

2. C.L. No. 58-50/Admn of Akil alias Javed VS. State of NCT of Delhi, 'G', 23.11.1992 reported in 2012 (11) SCALE 709, in paras 27 to 36: State of UP Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and

3. C.L. No. 54/VIIb-18, others, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667; Raj Deo

06.12.2000 Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr.L.J. 4541 and Lt. Col. SJ. Chaudhari Vs. State (Delhi)

4. C.L. No. 8/VIIb-18, Administration, (1984) 1 SCC 722, I am

07.02.2000 directed to state that the High Court is noticing disturbing in criminal trials, where

5. C.L. No. C-72/1990, Sessions cases are being adjourned, in some

26.07.1990 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: (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.”

In Doongar Singh v. State of Rajasthan: (2018) 13 SCC 741, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that:- 17 BAIL No. 12691 of 2025 “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 CrPC as reiterated in judgments of this Court, inter alia, in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667, Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B.: (2002) 7 SCC 334 and Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220. 10.2. The eyewitnesses must be examined by prosecution as soon as possible. 10.3. Statements of eyewitnesses should invariably be recorded under Section 164 CrPC as per procedure prescribed thereunder.”

In these circumstances, while the court finds no good ground to allow the second bail application of the applicant and the same is rejected, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties keeping in view the statutory mandate contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases and the circular dated 14.05.2015 issued by this Court. February 23, 2026 Pradeep/- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)