Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121690 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43553 of 2023 Applicant :- Shiv Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bishram Tiwari,Ritesh Singh,Suresh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anuj Bajpai,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ritesh Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.140 of 2020, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed the murder of the father of the informant by shooting him in his chest on 10.3.2020 at about 04:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The case does not fall within the category of Section 302 I.P.C. as it is a case of sudden provocation during Holi celebration and there is no motive behind the offence, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as he is languishing in jail since 6.5.2020 and the period of incarceration is more than five years, as such, he has almost served half of the sentence which may be given if he is convicted in the present case. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR was instituted within time and the applicant is the main accused person who had shot the father of the informant. It is further argued that the trial is at its conclusive end as already eight witnesses have been examined to date. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that FIR is prompt and the applicant is the main assailant having committed the murder of the father of the informant coupled by the fact that trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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. 11. 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 :- 24.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad