Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139532 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39728 of 2024 Applicant :- Firoz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh,Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 235 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Budhana, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted 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 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. 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 18.06.2024, 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. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within the reasonable time. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The applicant being her husband is the main accused person, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 06.08.2025. As per the said report, the examination-in-chief of doctor, P.W.-1 is going on. 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. The Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, 2025 INSC 974, has categorically reinforced that the bail orders engrave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the husband of deceased and she has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 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:- 14.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad