Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137755 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27531 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first and the second bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 11.10.2022 and 8.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.25337 of 2022 and 24796 of 2024 respectively. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.64 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, the trial is at its conclusive end as the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.07.2023, but the judgment is not being pronounced by the court concerned, as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The applicant is in jail since 31.05.2021, as such, more than four years have passed since he is incarcerated. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application. 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 the trial is at its conclusive end, 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 as early as possible 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. 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 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad