Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108581 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 820 of 2025 Appellant :- Rambabu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Although notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2, but none present on his behalf. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Rambabu with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.297 of 2023 under Sections 306, 504 IPC and 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sindhauli, District Shahjahanpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 4. This is the second appeal moved by the accused appellant mainly on two grounds, out of which one is delayed trial and second is contradictions occurred in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 5. It is submitted that the first criminal appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2023 on merits and since then no witness was examined before the trial court and now two witnesses of fact have been examined and they are having material contradictions in their depositions. On the aforesaid two grounds, the appellant is entitled to bail by allowing the present criminal appeal. 6. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that at this stage when the trial is going on and the evidence of the crucial witnesses is being recorded before the trial court, it is not proper for this Hon'ble Court to make any comment upon the testimonies of witnesses of fact or to point out the contradictions occurred in their statements. It is further submitted that so far as the delayed trial is concerned, the trial court may be given another direction for the expeditious disposal of this case. 7. Since the merits of this appeal have already been discussed in the first appellate order dated 23.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10568 of 2023, in fact the present appellant is virtually having no ground in his favour to allow the present appeal. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the fact that the present appeal is pending at the stage of bail, it should not be proper for this Court to make any comment or to point out any contradictions occurred in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the crucial witnesses, and the trial may be prejudiced. No ground is made out to allow the present appeal and to release the accused appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 10. However, the learned trial court is directed to make all possible endeavour to expedite the trial of the case and to conclude it expeditiously, preferably within a period of further Eight months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it. 11. It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities, counsels, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad