HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36346 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Sweta Gaur, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durgvijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.152 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3, 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Gaur, District Basti with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 1.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4051 of 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground the statement of victim has been recorded during trial and she has denied being inflicted any injuries by the applicant during her cross-examination. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.11.2024, as such, he is incarcerated for more than eleven months and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sweta Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anish Alias Phoolchandra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the bail application on the ground that minor contradictions are bound to come in the statement of a natural witnesses. Two witnesses have already been examined and the trial is going on. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that in the intervening period two witnesses have already been examined and the trial is going on, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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 as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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. October 17, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 36346 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad