HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14521 of 2024 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session Trial No.683 of 2022, Case Crime No.282 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is in jail since 12.05.2022, as such, he is incarcerated for about three years and three months. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no other injury sustained by the deceased person. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 6. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 30.07.2025, eight witnesses have Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vipin @ Operator .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) been examined. 7. 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. 8. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the applicant being the husband of the deceased person and the deceased having expired within the precincts of his house and also the status report of concerned Trial Court, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex 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. 10. 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 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 14521 of 2024 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad