Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123230 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6239 of 2025 Applicant :- Har Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Chandra Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2024, under Sections 376 I.P.C., Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 27.05.2024 by calling her to his house at 7 a.m. On her raising of alarm, nephew of the informant had seen, reached the place and got her released from the clutches of the applicant. 5. 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. The FIR is delayed by four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is an aged old person of 71 years. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is further stated that witnesses of fact have been examined and there is no likelihood of applicant tempering with the evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.05.2024, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the victim was mentally retarded person and she has been ravished by the applicant taking the advantage of her disability. The applicant himself is 71 years old and has committed the said offence, as such it comes within the category of maximum mental depravity. 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 the applicant is an aged old person of 71 years and the victim is a young girl aged about 20 years and she being mentally retarded person and also taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end as already seven witness have been examined and as per report provided by the trial Court, only one witness is remained to be examined, 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 :- 25.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad