HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2094 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.263 of 2023, under Sections 376- A, B, 506 I.P.C. and 5(M)(N)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Baniather, District- Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 6.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6190 of 2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2023, as such, he is incarcerated in jail for more than one and half year 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. Learned counsel has stated that there is demand of money by the victim from the applicant as it is a case of honey-trap and it is not a case as alleged in the FIR. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Sanjay Srivastava Jagat Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 21.8.2025, the statement of accused has been recorded U/s 381 BNSS and the case is fixed for defence evidence. 8. 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. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the trial is at its conclusive end and there being no new ground for pressing the instant bail application except the period of incarceration, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 10. The present bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 11. 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. 12. 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 8, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 2094 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad