Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133548 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43183 of 2022 Applicant :- Soni @ Irfan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hare Krishna Tripathi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Hare Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, 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.480 of 2021, under Sections 342 and 376D IPC and Section 5(G)(M)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused person Aadil who has been enlarged on bail by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3109 of 2025 and has stated that the main role has been assigned to co-accused person Jahid, as such, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 19.07.2021, as such, his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the co-accused person Aadil as the said accused was assigned the role of simply standing at the place of occurrence, while the applicant is one of the main perpetrator of crime as he had called the victim and on his calling she had gone to the place of occurrence and the applicant had put her alongwith with the co-accused persons in the room and locked the door from outside, as such, he is not entitled for bail as his role being at a different footing to the co-accused person Aadil. 6. 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. 7. This Court had called for status of trial and the status report of the trial court dated 17.07.2025 indicates that six witnesses have been examined and only one expert witness remains to be examined. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the role of the applicant being at a different footing to the co-accused person Aadil coupled with the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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. 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 :- 7.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad