HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35793 of 2024 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. This is the second bail application of the applicant. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8865 of 2022. 3. Heard Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ravi Prakash, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.208 of 2021, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District-Ballia with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 30.05.2021, as such, his period of incarceration comes out to be more than four years. It is further submitted that the applicant lost his sanity for substantial period of time and had undergone treatment. It is further argued that the trial is at its conclusive end as statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharad Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Pravesh Yadav, Shashank Kumar Dharmendra Gupta .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application there is no new ground except the period of incarceration, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. 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. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is no new ground except the period of incarceration and the trial being at its conclusive end, 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 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 Karan BAIL No. 35793 of 2024 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad