HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28332 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shiva Ji, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25167 of 2024. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 0022 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) IPC, Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pahadi,, District Chitrakoot with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated as he is incarcerated for about 1 year 7 months, as he is languishing in jail since 26.02.2024. During trial, only one witness i.e. informant has been examined as PW1, that too, way back on 24.02.2025 and the victim was not appearing for deposing in the Court and as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 6. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Suhail, Shiva Ji Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rafeek .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is no new ground to grant bail to the applicant and period of incarceration is less than two years coupled with the fact that the age of the victim was 14 years at the time of the incident, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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. September 9, 2025 #Vik/- BAIL No. 28332 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad