Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144876 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11889 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohammad Kamaluddin @ Munna Bhai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pratap Singh,Shweta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 27.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Mohd. Samizzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Durgvijay Singh, learned A.A.G. assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(n), 323 of IPC and Sections 5(J)(ii), 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Babupurwa, District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. His first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.9.2024 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 2455 of 2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the main ground of the applicant is the period of incarceration as he is in jail since 17.10.2023 and the trial is not moving ahead. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. It is also stated that the DNA analysis of the victim's fetus and the applicant could not be conducted as the Investigating Officer did not take the samples properly. The applicant is ready to again give samples for the said purpose. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned A.A.G. assisted by learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end as already five witnesses have been examined. The delay is due to the dilatory tactics of the counsel for the applicant. The DNA analysis examination is still pending, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. 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 19.08.2025. As per the said report, five witnesses have been examined to date, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 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. 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 as five witnesses have already been examined coupled by the fact that the period of incarceration is less than two years, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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