HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31287 of 2025 Court No. - 66 (Sl. No. 77 out of 150) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Raju Malviya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chandra Pal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504, 34 of IPC, Police Station- Bithrichainpur, District - Bareilly, 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. It is next contended that the applicant is in jail since 18.12.2023, as such, the period of incarceration is more than two years and three months. 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 counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the named accused in the FIR. The trial is already in progress and five prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is also pointed out that the counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine the eye-witness, and therefore, the opportunity for cross-examination has been closed. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raju Kanaujia, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Sarvesh Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Pal, G.A., Rajesh Kumar, Udayveer Singh Dhakan Lal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. 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 10.12.2025. As per the said report, five witnesses have been examined to date, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 7. 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. 8. 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 fact that the trial is at its conclusive end as already five witnesses have been examined as well as the conduct of the applicant's counsel before Trial Court, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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. March 18, 2026 Siddhant BAIL No. 31287 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad