HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32695 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rajjan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.118 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43707 of 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the trial is at its conclusive end as seven witnesses have already been examined and there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with evidence. The applicant is not a flight risk. He is 67 years old aged person. The applicant is in jail since 26.05.2022. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the earlier order is a speaking order and the applicant carried common intention Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ganesh Sahni .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) to commit the said offence alongwith the other co-accused persons. The trial is at its conclusive end, which is an admitted fact. 7. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 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 no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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 as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex 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. October 7, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 32695 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad