Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129284 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3780 of 2024 Applicant :- Munish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indresh Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2023, under Sections 498-A & 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Sunngarhi, District - Kasganj, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained, as such, her viscera was preserved. As per viscera report, aluminium phosphide has been found in the body of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2023. 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and in the viscera of the deceased person, aluminium phosphide has been found. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and as per the status report dated 28.07.2025, two witnesses have been examined to date. 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. 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 aluminium phosphide has been found in the viscera of the deceased person, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application 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 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:- 1.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad