Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133885 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49989 of 2023 Applicant :- Rama Shankar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,V.K. Baranwal,Vivek Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K. Baranwal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2023, under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bara, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forcibly dragged the niece of the informant into an agricultural field and committed rape with her when she had gone to ease herself out on 24.06.2023 at about 08:00 PM. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than 13 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and after legal consultations. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has also stated that there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim as she has stated before the doctor, who had medically examined her, that she did not know the name of the assailants and stated that she has been told their names by her parents. There are minor injuries sustained by the victim. The other injuries are about sensation of pain and there is no method to measure it. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that there are material contradictions in the FIR to the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she has improved the story and stated that the accused persons were three in number, although, she has levelled the allegation of rape against the applicant, Rama Shankar Yadav son of Chhote Lal Yadav only. The other two persons, namely, Rama Shankar Yadav son of Sahdev and Buddhraj son of Lalmani were standing there. 8. Learned Senior Counsel has next stated that the victim has reiterated the allegations made in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. at the stage of recording of her statement in court during trial. The trial is at its conclusive end as it is fixed for defence evidence. There is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence and he is not a flight risk. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2023, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are injuries sustained by the victim on her vital parts and she was minor at the time of offence. The two injuries were found on her cheek and leg which corroborate the prosecution story. The trial is at its conclusive end as the date is fixed for defence evidence, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and also considering the statement of the victim and the injuries sustained by her coupled by the fact that the trial is at a conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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. 14. 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 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad