Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138525 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9794 of 2023 Applicant :- Vedram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Patel,Nagendra Kumar Singh,Syed Ali Murtaza,Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Shankar Tripathi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Binawar, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40539 of 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring forward any new ground for grant of bail of the applicant. The only ground taken up by learned counsel for the applicant is the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 11.06.2022. The applicant is cooperating in trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail. 7. This Court had called for status of trial on 15.07.2025 and the said report received from the trial court dated 29.07.2025 indicates that statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 30.04.2025 and the case is fixed for final arguments on 31.07.2025 and the trial is at its conclusive end. 8. The Supreme Court in case of 'X' Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. The said judgment has been passed in the case of sexual offence only. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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. 12. 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 :- 13.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad