Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138732 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5808 of 2024 Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Kumar Kuntal Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 181 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sikandra, District- Agra, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 08.03.2018, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of swift car as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 12.03.2023 at about 09:00 AM. 6. 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 eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Motive stands falsified as the brother of the deceased has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the father-in-law of the deceased person had an evil eye on her, as such, the demand of dowry, if any, is false. It is further argued that ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. are not fulfilled as there is no allegation of demand of dowry soon before her death. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. Learned counsel has further argued that cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and no other injury was observed on her body. Even the statement of witnesses are contrary to the FIR. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that trial is at its conclusive end and six witnesses have already been examined and FIR is prompt and the deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail. 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 dated 07.08.2025. As per the said report, six witnesses have been examined to date, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 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. The Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, 2025 INSC 974, has categorically reinforced that the bail orders engrave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is prompt and deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 13. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 14. 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. 15. 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 :- 13.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad