Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115016 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35956 of 2023 Applicant :- Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Yadav,Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aradhana Singh,Bhawna Verma,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Original supplementary affidavit dated 31.8.2024 filed by learned counsel for the applicant is not on record. The photostat copy of the same provided by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.420 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad 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. The victim seems to be a consenting party as she had gone with the applicant and stayed at his home for two days. The applicant is stated to have ravished her but the said allegations are false. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the consent of the victim can be drawn from the fact that she has stated that she was dropped at the police station by the applicant, thereupon wife of the applicant dropped her at her maternal house. The applicant is even stated to have asked the victim to marry her in court. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that two witnesses of fact have been examined, as such, there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with evidence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.6.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that age of the victim is 16 years only and the applicant is a 43 years old married person, as such, he has misused his clout and ruined the life of a young girl. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that three witnesses have already been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end and only doctor and the constable clerk remain to be examined. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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 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. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that already three witnesses have been examined and there being a difference of 27 years in the age of the applicant and victim coupled with the fact that trial is at its conclusive end, 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. 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 :- 16.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad