Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139333 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39229 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Uma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Rajput,Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Durgvijay Singh, learned AAG assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 606 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2021, under Sections 302, 307, 394, 411 & 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station - Masuri, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She is not named in the FIR. It is true that it is a case of triple murder and two persons were injured in it but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence only. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.02.2021, having no criminal history to her credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AAG have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case as the injured, who was also in a very serious condition and was admitted in the hospital, herself had nominated the applicant and even her statement has been recorded in court, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 13.08.2025. As per the said report, 13 witnesses have already been examined to date, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the injured person has nominated the applicant and the offence is a diabolic coupled by the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application 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 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. 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:- 14.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad