HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31643 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Faiz, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Session Trial No.1560 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.288 of 2021, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Dadon, District- Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.7.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45211 of 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.1.2022, as such, he is incarcerated in jail for a considerable period of time and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. As such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is no new ground for grant of bail to the applicant except the period of incarceration. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has also not been explained and the trial is at its conclusive end, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Faiz Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Afsar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 that criminal history of the applicant has not been explained and there being no new ground for pressing the instant bail application except the period of incarceration coupled with the fact that trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The present bail application is hereby 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 23, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 31643 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad