Ali Zamin, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2020, under Sections 376-AB, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(D)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 11.11.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during examination before the trial court victim has given contradictory statement, therefore, he is entitled for bail on this ground. He also submits that trial is at the version of conclusion almost all the witnesses have been examined only two witnesses are remaining. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.05.2020.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that appreciation of the evidences has been made by the trial court, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, appreciation of the evidences has to be made by the trial court, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I do not find a fit case for bail.

7. Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Pravindra Singh hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.

8. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to expedite this case in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and decide as early as possible preferably within a period of four months.