Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82641 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43975 of 2024 Applicant :- Ranjeet Gurjar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravikant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ravikant Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 503 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(Gha), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co- accused person Sunil Shahu @ Chhunna Teli, who has been enlarged on bail, as such the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.12.2022 and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial in near future. The applicant is cooperating in trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the applicant was named accused person and the co-accused person who has been granted bail by this Court, was not named in the FIR. It is further stated that another co-accused Vikas Yadav had also applied for bail, who was named in the FIR and the same has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2024. 7. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the victim has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR in her statement recorded in court. It is next stated that four witnesses have already been examined. The trial is at its conclusive end, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the bail application of the co-accused Vikas Yadav, who was named accused person, has been rejected by this Court and the case of the applicant is at par with the said co- accused coupled by the fact that the victim has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR, in her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS against the applicant in court, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad