Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138451 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37091 of 2023 Applicant :- Sudama Chaudhari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Karuna Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Karuna Nand Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.158 of 2022, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sonauli, District Maharajganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. A bag is stated to have been recovered and the I.D. of the applicant has been found in it, as such, the applicant has been implicated in the instant case only on the basis of suspicion after recovery of the said I.D. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The evidence tendered at bar does not bear any credibility. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 04.10.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is almost at is logical end, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 28.07.2025, eight witnesses have already been examined. 8. 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. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration 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. 10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously 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. 12. 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 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad