Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145380 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43213 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anjani Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vijendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 277 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 & 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Belghat, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the informant's daughter as per Hindu Rites on 16.05.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of Rs. 02 lakhs as dowry thereby leading her to death on 03.11.2023. 5. 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 as no time of offence is mentioned in it. 6. Learned counsel has also stated 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 15.11.2023, 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. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is not cooperating in trial as two witnesses have been examined in 2024 and they have not been cross-examined by them. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the counsel for the applicant has heart pain and, as such, adjournments were sought on his behalf before trial court. 9. 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 on 23.07.2025. As per the said report, examination-in-chief of two witnesses were recorded on 28.10.2024 and 21.11.2024. 10. 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and there being no cooperation in trial, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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. 14. 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:- 22.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad