Shadab vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 6691 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shadab vs State Of U.P. on 18 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140510
 

 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53395 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Shadab
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur,Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui,Prashant Kumar,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Archana Singh,G.A.,Sudhir Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

2. Heard Sri Abhinav Gaur, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for High Court Legal Service Committee and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Special Session Trial No.247 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.184 of 2021, under Sections 363, 120-B, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 3/4(2), 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have raped the victim on 30.9.2021 at about 10:00 a.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the circumstances. The trial is moving at a snail's pace. The criminal history of eight cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos. 48 to 55 to the affidavit filed with bail application. The applicant is in jail since 29.11.2021 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. The applicant has to prepare for his defense, as such, he may be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for High Court Legal Service Committee have 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 14.8.2025, the prosecution evidence is complete and the case is fixed for statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C.

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 trial is at its conclusive end as the prosecution evidence is complete and the case is fixed for statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C., I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

10. The bail application is 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.

Order Date :- 18.8.2025

Vikas/-

(Justice Krishan Pahal)