Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134432 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39010 of 2022 Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 2.9.2022. 3. Heard Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.621 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376- DA IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Katghar, District- Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. No injury was observed on the private part of the victim. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail. Learned counsel has stated that the trial is at its conclusive end, as such, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.2.2022, as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail." 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that trial is at its conclusive end as admitted by the counsel of applicant and also in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court passed in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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 :- 8.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad