Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141010 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35915 of 2024 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashvni Mishra,Ravi Pandey,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurudh Kumar Prajapati,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Prajapati, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurudh Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, 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. 142 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khair, District- Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The deceased had committed suicide as a dispute arose between husband and wife duo, but he has not put the deceased to death. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the allegations in the FIR are vague as there was no demand of dowry, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 24.3.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there was demand of a motorcycle and Rs.1 lakh as dowry. The deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The trial is moving on and eight witnesses have been examined to date and the trial is at its conclusive end, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 13.8.2025, eight prosecution witnesses have been examined. 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 the fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the trial being at its conclusive end as eight witnesses have been examined to date, 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) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad