Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140286 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31356 of 2023 Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha,Chakshuvendra Pachauri,Jitendra Kumar,Narendra Kumar Singh,Purushottam Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Dixit,G.A.,Ugrasen Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Purushottam Dixit, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Ifra Islam, 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. 112 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Patiyali, District Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have fired gun-shot at the son of the informant at a Dhaba causing his death on 13.05.2022 at about 11:30 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Two persons sustained injuries from the side of the applicant also. The father of the applicant is the owner of the said Dhaba where the said dispute arose. The deceased person and other person had assaulted the father of the applicant, as such, the dispute arose. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed from the side of the applicant also and closure report was filed in it and protest petition was filed in the said application which is pending and is likely to be decided soon, as such, case of the applicant does not go beyond the exception (2) of Section 300 I.P.C. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 22.08.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR the trial is at its conclusive end and no cross-case is pending at this stage, as such, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 8. This Court had called for status of report from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 28.07.2025 received from the trial Court concerned, 8 witnesses have been examined so far. 9. 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. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is no cross case pending at this stage and as per status report, 8 witnesses have been examined to date and in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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 :- 18.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad