Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 64329 (ALL)

PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/18824/2025 · 2025-08-12

Krishan Pahal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138390 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18824 of 2025 Applicant :- Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None is present on behalf of the applicant to press the bail application. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, under Sections 354, 354Ka, 376AB of I.P.C., Section 9M/10 and 5MF/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Araniya, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.20438 of 2024. 5. This Court had called for status of trial on 15.07.2025 and the said report received from the trial court dated 07.08.2025 indicates that ten witnesses have already been examined to date and adjournments are being sought at the behest of counsel for the applicant only. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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 and also considering the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected for want of prosecution. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad