HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40484 of 2023 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Hari Om Rai, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashwini Kumar 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.102 of 2023, under Sections 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Ganjdundwara, District-Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations are per se false and applicant has not raped the victim. There is no injury to corroborate the prosecution story. Victim is major aged about 19 years as per ossification test and leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant. It is further argued that even the fact that the victim was of unsound mind does not stand corroborated by any evidence whatsoever. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 09.04.2023 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 informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that medical examination report of the victim indicates that she had sustained injuries on her vital parts and the FIR is prompt as it was instituted the same night. Even the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 09.04.2023 itself, as such, he is not entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hardev Prajapati, Hari Om Rai, Ravesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Geetam Singh Amar Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 25.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, three witnesses have been examined during trial. 7. 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. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that three witnesses have been examined during trial and there being injuries on the vital parts of the victim which are being withheld for the sake of brevity, 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 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. September 1, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 40484 of 2023 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad