Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123250 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6991 of 2025 Applicant :- Bharat @ Bharatiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.1.2021 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 29978 of 2020. 2. Heard Sri R.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 767 of 2019, under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Etmaddaula, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial. 4. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.10.2019, as such, more than five years have passed since he is incarcerated. Only one witness has been examined to date as the trial is moving at a snail's pace, as such, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that it is a clear cut case of false implication as there is no medical evidence to corroborate the prosecution story. There is no criminal history of the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A.-I has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim, who is a mentally retarded girl, and the applicant both were inmates in a women welfare home. The applicant along with other co-accused persons has committed rape with her. 7. This Court had called for a report regarding the current status of trial and as per the status report filed by the trial court, six witnesses of fact have already completed by 02.06.2025 and after that, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 02.06.2025. Subsequent to it, the case was fixed for final argument on 05.07.2025 which implies that 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record and also considering the fact that the victim was a mentally retarded girl, who used to live in women welfare home coupled by the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end and taking into consideration the judgement of Supreme Court passed in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application 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 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad