Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30850 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5954 of 2024 Appellant :- Himanshu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,G.A.,Mehar Darshika Saxena Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Himanshu against the bail rejection order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Session Judge, Farrukhabad in Case Crime No. 262 of 2021 under Sections 366, 376, 323, 504, 326Ka, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)V, 3(1)(a) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Farrukhabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record. No one is present from the informant side. 3. The only ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second criminal appeal is the delayed trial and also the fact that out of 20 witnesses in the list of prosecution witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been examined. Despite directions by this Court given to the trial court vide order dated 20.04.2023, the trial court has not concluded the trial within the stipulated period of one year. On this ground prayer for granting bail by allowing the present second appeal is made and there is no apprehension of tampering of evidence on the part of the appellant. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 21.11.2021. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been submitted that the first Criminal Appeal No. 7519 of 2022 moved by the appellant was dismissed on merits. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 30.05.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. However, there is no denial to the fact that trial court has not concluded the trial whereas once time was granted by the Coordinate Bench by virtue of aforesaid order the trial should have been concluded. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 6. The first appeal was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.04.2023 wherein the trial Court was further directed to make all endevour to dispose of the case within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 7. Having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused as also that the prosecution had never approached the trial court for examination of each and every witness to be shown in the list of prosecution witnesses, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 9. However, trial court is directed to make all necessary endevour to conclude the trial of the appellant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. Office is also directed to send a copy of the order passed today to the trial Court for necessary compliance. 11. However, it is made clear that if the trial is not concluded within a further period of nine months the appellant should be at liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad