Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138463 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25694 of 2025 Applicant :- Saurabh Alias Saurabh Sharma Alias Saurabh Josi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar,Pramil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 384 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.33973 of 2024. 5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.06.2024 and only one witness has been examined to date. The trial is moving at snail's pace and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial in near future. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The applicant is cooperating in trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is no new ground advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and 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 :- 13.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad