Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143294 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14759 of 2024 Applicant :- Susheel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Verma Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2023 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 37240 of 2020. 2. Heard Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant Verma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in S.T. No. 286 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station - Allau, District - Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. 4. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is in jail since 25.07.2019, as such, he is incarcerated for about six years. His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India stand violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned on 24.07.2025. As per the said report, the trial is at its conclusive end as the case is fixed for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2025. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end coupled by the fact that no new ground has pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application 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 laid down in the recent judgements 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:- 20.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad