HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37262 of 2025 Court No. - 65 (Sr. No.58 out of 259) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Indra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Narayan Singh (Kushwaha), learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State. 3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3423 of 2025. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.195 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2024, as such, he is incarcerated in jail for more than one and a half years. The trial is moving at a snail's pace as only four witnesses have been examined to date. As such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Beerendra Pratap Singh, Indra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Rahul .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is moving on as already four witnesses have been examined, as such, the applicant 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 counsel for the applicant could not produce any new ground for pressing the instant bail application except the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. April 23, 2026 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 37262 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad