Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144940 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18881 of 2023 Applicant :- Devendra Singh Alias Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar,Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. As per the office report dated 11.09.2024, notice to the informant has been served personally but none is present on her behalf even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 443 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 5j(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Ajeetmal, District - Auraiya, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about seven months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the FIR was instituted after learning about the pregnancy of the victim. The allegations in the FIR cannot be believed as the marriage of the applicant was to be solemnized on 10.02.2022 and it was not possible for him to commit rape on the said date as it is but natural that during the said marriage function, a lot of relatives were present in his house. Even the date of applicant's marriage i.e. 10.02.2022 is admitted in the statement of P.W. - 1. 6. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.09.2022, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was impregnated and the said fetus has been aborted subsequently. The applicant has ruined the life of the victim, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned on 14.08.2025. As per the said report, six witnesses have been examined and the case is fixed for defence evidence on 19.08.2025, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 9. 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. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end coupled by the fact that the victim's life has ruined by the act of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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:- 22.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad