HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37573 of 2023 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.1114 of 2019, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Vijay Nagar, District-Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have shot the deceased person in the night of 28.10.2019 at about 09:15 PM. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is blind murder which is but indicated from the statement of P.W.1 who is stated to be the eye witness along with the informant-Sulekha and she had denied having seen the incident during cross-examination. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 29.10.2019, as such, he is incarcerated for about five years ten months 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant, P.W.1-Sulekha who is an eye witness in the instant case has categorically supported the prosecution story and the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Azaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vaseem @ Vakeel .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) delay in recording the statement of witnesses may be the reason of her resiling from her earlier statement. It is also argued that four witnesses have already been examined, as such, trial is at its conclusive end, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 27.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, four witnesses have already been examined. 9. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 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 FIR being instituted the same night of the incident and the prosecution story being supported by the first informant, 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. September 8, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 37573 of 2023 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad