Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129228 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18330 of 2023 Applicant :- Nitin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Kumar,Manish Kumar Tripathi,Nitika Sharma,Vinod Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 20.04.2023 but none is present on his behalf even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Kapil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 523 of 2019, under Sections 363, 376D, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kithore, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring forward any new ground for grant of bail of the applicant as the victim has deposed against the applicant. The only ground taken up by learned counsel for the applicant is the period of incarceration, who is languishing in jail for more than five and half years, as such he may be enlarged on bail as there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail. 7. This Court had called for status of trial on 10.07.2025 and the said report received from the trial court dated 29.07.2025 indicates that four witness have been examined to date and even the said report indicates that the cause of adjournment for eight times was counsel for the applicant. 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 facts and circumstances of the case, 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