Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129242 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48271 of 2023 Applicant :- Mulayam Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Tiwari,Udai Shankar Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sher Bahadur Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 322 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 2022, under Sections 201, 498-A & 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Khanpur, District - Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is a clear cut case of false implication as the FIR has been instituted after due deliberations and legal consultations. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no postmortem examination report to corroborate the prosecution story. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and the applicant is incarcerated since 19.01.2022, as such, his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end as six prosecution witnesses have already been examined. There was demand of dowry and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. It is further argued that the applicant had concealed the death of deceased from her family members and cremated her secretly, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and as per the status report dated 25.07.2025, six witnesses have been examined to date, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the FIR has been lodged within a reasonable time, the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that the trial is at a conclusive end and also taking into consideration the judgement referred hereinabove, 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:- 1.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad