Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129627 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37908 of 2024 Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. As per office report dated 01.08.2025, the original file of the instant bail application is missing. A xerox copy of the instant bail application along with the supplementary affidavit is being arranged for disposal of the bail application. 3. Office is hereby directed to locate the original record and place it on record along with the photocopy of the bail application. 4. Heard Sri Piyush Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 969 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2023, under Sections 498-A & 304- B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant as per Hindu Rites on 21.06.2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of a motorcycle, gold chain and gold ring as dowry thereby leading her to death on 12.07.2023 at about 07:00 PM. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 15 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. Learned counsel has also stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only three witnesses have been examined to date and the applicant is incarcerated for more than two years, as such, his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. It is further argued that there are ample contradictions in the statement of the witnesses to the FIR. Even the mother of the deceased has stated that the applicant had not subjected the victim to any cruelty. 9. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2023, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 10. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and three witnesses have already been examined, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and that too within one year of her marriage, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 11. 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. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the FIR has been lodged within a reasonable time, the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that the trial is at a conclusive end as three witnesses have already been examined and also taking into consideration the judgement of Supreme Court referred hereinabove, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 13. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 14. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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. 15. 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:- 1.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad