Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138560 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28697 of 2023 Applicant :- Viajy Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rasmi Khilwani Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Rupesh Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0134 of 2020, under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 5N/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Adampur, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the third bail application. The earlier two bail applications were rejected by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court on different occasions. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring forward any new ground for grant of bail of the applicant. The only ground taken up by learned counsel for the applicant is the period of incarceration, who is languishing in jail since 07.01.2021 and he has been incarcerated for more than four and half years, as such he may be enlarged on bail. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail. 7. This Court had called for status of trial on 07.07.2025 and the said report received from the trial court dated 02.08.2025 indicates that nine witnesses have been examined to date and the trial is moving ahead. 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 and considering the fact that the trial is moving on, 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 :- 13.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad