Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103747 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48717 of 2023 Applicant :- Samjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham,Yashwant Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shubham, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 532 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.08.2020 and only one witness has been examined till date. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the medical report appended with the bail application is incomplete. The medical examination of the victim was undertaken on the very next day of incident i.e. on 14.08.2020. She was medically examined and the Doctor therein had observed injuries on her vital parts. Learned AGA has further stated that the case has not moved ahead due to the adjournments taken by the counsel for the applicant at various stages. The witness has turned up for several times in Court for her statement. 6. This Court had called for status of trial from the Trial Court concerned which indicates that PW-1, whose statement has been recorded, appeared in Court on several dates i.e. on 20.11.2021, 11.08.2022, 11.10.2022, 03.03.2023, 13.05.2023, 05.06.2023, 02.08.2023, 11.12.2023, 04.03.2024 and 03.04.2024 but the case was adjourned at one pretext or other. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the umpteen number of times the case being adjourned at one pretext or other and there being no new ground to grant the bail to the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for bail. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 3.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad