Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129216 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15365 of 2023 Applicant :- Pradeep Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mayank,Sarthak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sarthak Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 315 of 2021, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.09.2021, as such he is in jail for about four years. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial in near future. The applicant is cooperating in trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that applicant is the main accused and he was nominated in the FIR. The trial is complete and all the witnesses have been examined. 7. This Court had called for a report regarding status of trial on 03.07.2025 and the said report received from the trial court dated 16.07.2025 indicates that 12 witnesses have been examined and the prosecution evidence is closed and the case is fixed for recording of statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., as such 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 status of trial being at its conclusive end and period of incarceration being less than four years, 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 :- 1.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad