Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138326 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32625 of 2023 Applicant :- Anklesh Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Inspectar Singh,Rajesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Lalit Chaudhary,Vijay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Gaurav Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Inspectar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ram Lalit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49653 of 2022. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.41 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sonha, District Basti with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is in jail since 29.06.2022, as such, he is incarcerated for more than three years and the period of incarceration violates the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as it is moving at a snail's pace. There are twenty one witnesses mentioned in the final report (charge-sheet). The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is almost at its logical end, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 04.08.2025, ten witnesses have been examined and only two other witnesses remains to be examined. 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the instant bail application and the trial is at its conclusive end, 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 as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad