Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124044 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37857 of 2023 Applicant :- Dharmveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh,Sachin Malik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sachin Malik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2021, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station - Mansoorpur, District - Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is seeking bail on following grounds:- i) He is more than 60 years old person; ii) There are general and omnibous allegations against all the accused person; iii) The trial is at its conclusive end as only the Investigating Officer is remained to be examined but there is no likelihood of him being tampering with the evidence; iv) Although the bail application of co-accused Sumit has been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.02.2022 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 5926 of 2022 but the co- accused Sonu has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2021 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 29385 of 2021. v) He has no criminal antecedents to his credit; vi) He is languishing in jail since 16.04.2023, as such, he is in jail since last four and a half years; 5. Learned counsel has lastly stated that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end and there were more than 10 injuries observed on the body of the injured person, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, injuries sustained by the injured person and also considering the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end and taking into consideration the judgement of Supreme Court passed in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 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:- 28.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad