Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118888 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26408 of 2023 Applicant :- Jeetu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar,Dileep Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Tarun Jha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramanuj Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the second bail application on behalf of applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 1.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18182 of 2020. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.216 of 2019 (Session Trial No.330 of 2020), under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Belghat, District Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, it is the period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled for bail as he is in jail since 22.10.2019 and about four years and nine months have passed since his incarceration. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is almost at its logical end. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling. 7. This Court had called report from the Sessions Court regarding status of trial. As per status report dated 05.02.2025, six witnesses have been examined and only two more witnesses remained to be examined. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant that too by throttling coupled with the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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. 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. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad