Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115133 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16760 of 2024 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Dubey,G.A.,Ram Milan Dwivedi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, 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. 201 of 2023, under Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Pahari, District - Chitrakoot, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 10 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that there are several contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Even the statement of P.W. -2 mother of the deceased person, is inconsistent to the FIR and the version to the other prosecution witnesses. The trial is moving at a snail's pace. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2023, 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 A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within 10 hours. The trial is at its conclusive end as five prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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. 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, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application 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 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. 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:- 16.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad