Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5927 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41139 of 2023 Applicant :- Brijesh Kumr Gaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Brijesh Kumar Gaur who is involved in Case Crime No. 699 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sahajanawa, District Gorakhpur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.08.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50478 of 2019 and second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39181 of 2022. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.01.2019 but his trial has not been concluded yet, therefore, considering the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that prosecution witnesses of fact who have been examined before the trial court, have supported the prosecution case. Lastly it is submitted that recently the Apex Court, in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, has held that if the trial of the accused has started, his bail should not be granted in heinous offences like murder, rape and dacoity. Since the offence is heinous in nature and trial of the applicant has started, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is not liable to be allowed. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that vide order of this Court dated 05.09.2024, a report was called for from the concerned Presiding OfÏcer with regard to present status of trial of the applicant. In compliance thereof, the trial court has submitted its report dated 30.09.2024 mentioning therein that statements of all the prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the trial court and the matter is fixed for recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused, and as such, trial is at the advanced stage, therefore, in the light of recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8.It is made clear that any observation made in this order is for the purpose of disposal of bail application and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 9. However considering the detention period of the applicant as noted above, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 10. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad