Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142788 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41412 of 2023 Applicant :- Dilip Yadav @ Pradeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kishor Mishra,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Pratap Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Raj Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime/FIR No.171 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 120-B IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the case of the applicant is at par with co-accused person Surendra Yadav who has been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21926 of 2024. He is languishing in jail since 15.08.2020, as such, he is incarcerated for about five years and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is true that it is double murder case, but there are inconsistencies between the statements of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that in the bail order of co-accused Surendra Yadav, the role of the applicant has been distinguished, whereby it is stated that the specific role of causing murder of father of the informant has been assigned to the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 18.08.2025, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.08.2025. 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. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is almost at its logical end, 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. 11. 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. 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 :- 20.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad