Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122444 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3809 of 2024 Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajkumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajkumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Ifra Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khaga, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 26.04.2021, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 12.10.2023 at about 04:00 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is argued that applicant was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident occurred, as such, applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The deceased had committed suicide out of depression. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 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 considering the fact that the deceased died within the precincts of the house of the applicant, FIR is filed within time coupled with the fact that three witnesses have already been examined and in light of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), 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 :- 25.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad