Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114538 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20432 of 2023 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Baitha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankita Pandey,Monu Upadhyay,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Ankita Pandey, 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. 673 of 2022, under Sections 302, 394, 201, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, husband of the informant was missing and a missing report to this effect was instituted by the informant at the police station on 08.08.2022. Subsequent to it, it was learnt by the informant that the husband, who used to drive his bolero car, was called by the applicant and two other co-accused persons Golu Kumar and Gulshan Khatoon and committed the murder of her husband and had thrown his dead body at some unknown place and have looted the said bolero car. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by four days from the date of occurrence and two days from the date of missing report instituted at the police station and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that no dead body of the deceased person has been recovered, as such it is a blind murder case. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The recovery of the said bolero car has been shown from the applicant and two other co-accused person who were found seated in the said bolero car on 11.08.2022. The said mobile has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant, rather it has been recovered from the possession of co-accused person Gulshan Khatoon and she has been enlarged on bail, as such the applicant is also entitled for bail as his case is at better footing qua co-accused person Gulshan Khatoon. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that there is a recovery of a knife at the pointing out of the applicant and the said bolero car was being driven by the applicant as he was seated on the seat of the driver. It was he, from whose possession the said bolero car has been recovered. A presumption under section 114 (i)(a) of Indian Evidence Act is applicable to the case of the applicant. 8. It is next stated that blood stains were observed at the place of occurrence and the applicant had shown the said place to the police. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has not been explained. 9. Learned State Law Officer has further stated that on the date of incident, there were regular parlays between the applicant and the deceased person as the C.D.R. of the mobile taken from the mobile company by the Investigating Officer indicates 12 conversations between the duo. The last location of the mobile of the applicant and the deceased person was found at the alleged place of occurrence on the date of incident. The trial is going on and four witnesses have already been examined, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the main accused and there is recovery of a bolero car at his pointing out that too just after about one day of the institution of the FIR and there being recovery of a knife at the pointing out of the applicant and also taking into account that there were 12 conversations between the applicant and the deceased person on the date of incident coupled by the fact that there is unexplained criminal history of one case to the credit of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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. 14. 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 :- 16.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad