Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143863 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41351 of 2023 Applicant :- Aftab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar,C.D.Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 21of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Titaron, District - Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 22.02.2022, as such, he is incarcerated for three and a half years. His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR has been instituted within a reasonable time. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and that too by throttling, as such, the onus lies on the applicant to explain as to who has throttled her. The applicant being her husband is the main accused person, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 6. 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 on 31.07.2025. As per the said report, eight witnesses have been examined, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 7. 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. 8. The Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, 2025 INSC 974, has categorically reinforced that the bail orders engrave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and that too by throttling coupled by the fact that the trial is at a conclusive end as eight witnesses have already been examined, 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:- 21.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad