Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117224 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4636 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 124 of 2022, under Sections 498- A, 323, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Madrak, District - Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. The first and second bail applications were rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 08.06.2023 and 29.07.2024 passed in C.M.B.A. Nos. 25743 of 2023 and 23835 of 2024, respectively. 4. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that two witnesses i.e. P.W.- 2 & 4 have subsequently been examined and they have not supported the prosecution story. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2022, as such, his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case as the informant has supported the prosecution story and his statement was intact during his cross-examination. The trial is at its conclusive end, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. 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. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end coupled by the judgement referred hereinabove, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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:- 18.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad