HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34696 of 2023 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee, Sri Ashwini Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.350 of 2022, under Sections 376A, B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Banda with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has nothing to do with the said offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no test identification parade of the applicant as per Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act and the applicant has simply been made an accused on the basis of the statement of grandfather of the victim. The applicant is in jail since 17.04.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt victim was 8 years old only and the allegations are of extreme mental depravity and the trial is moving on. Only three cases have been explained out of 14 cases of the criminal history of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Tripathi, Surya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Archana Singh, G.A. Kuldeep Tiwari Alias Bhondu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he could not get the orders of the other cases pending against him. 7. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 29.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, two witnesses have been examined. 8. The Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 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 that too before the statement of the victim is recorded. 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 the age of the victim being only 8 years coupled with the fact that criminal history of the applicant is not properly explained, 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. September 1, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 34696 of 2023 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad