Allahabad High Court
AKASH CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was denied because the trial was at its conclusive stage and precedent disallows bail after charge framing.
Summary
The applicant, Akash Chauhan, filed a bail application in a case involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act, claiming innocence and a lack of criminal history. He had been in custody for 16 months since December 2024. The trial court had already examined five witnesses and was awaiting the doctor's statement, indicating that the trial was at its conclusive stage. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024 INSC 909), the High Court held that bail should not be granted once the trial has progressed beyond the framing of charges. Consequently, the bail application was rejected as devoid of merit, with a direction to expedite the pending trial. The observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the trial is at its conclusive stage after charge framing
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) precludes bail in such circumstances
- Whether the applicant’s claim of innocence and lack of criminal history outweighs the stage of the trial
Legislation cited
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 3/4 (2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(VA), 351(2) BNS, 352, 65(1)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- trial stage
- SC/ST Act
- POCSO Act
- Supreme Court precedent
- pre‑trial detention
- rights of accused
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22572 of 2025
Akash Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Gopal, Satya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chitra Sen Singh, G.A., Ravindra
Prakash Srivastava
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 95 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has
been served to the informant on 5.7.2025.
2. Heard Sri Ram Gopal, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Akhil Krishna,
learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava,
learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri A.K. Mishra, learned
A.G.A. 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. 270 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 352, 351(2) BNS, 3(1)(da),
3(1)(dha), 3(2)(VA), 3(2)(v) S.C/S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 3/4
(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Waltergnaj, District Basti, with the prayer to
enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicant is in jail since 20.12.2024 as such, the period of incarceration is 16
months and he has no criminal history. The applicant is a poor labourer. In
case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that this Court had
called for the status of trial. As per the status report dated 9.4.2026, five
witnesses have already been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end.
BAIL No. 22572 of 2025
2
The trial is earmarked for the statement of the doctor.
6. 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.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that the trial is going on and is at its conclusive end, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…