Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145075 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44192 of 2023 Applicant :- Lankesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey,Shiv Shankar Kaithal,Tej Om Prakash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No.1662 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.25 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station- Baraur, District- Kanpur Dehat with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the dead body of the deceased was found in a mysterious circumstances on 15.5.2023. The inquest report and the postmortem examination were conducted on the basis of information given at the police station regarding the death. After delving deep into the matter and after inquiring from several persons of the locality, it was found that deceased was not ready to marry as per the wishes of the applicant, as such, he had committed her murder by strangulating her in the house. 5. The dead body was suspended to a wooden hanger after strangulating the deceased person just to show it to be a case of hanging. None of the villagers was ready to come forward and depose against the applicant or any other person, as such, it was SI Rajesh Kumar Yadav who got the FIR instituted at the police station on 16.5.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The family members of the applicant had joined the inquest proceedings, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the postmortem report which indicates that the hyoid bone of the deceased was intact, but the cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation. The said opinion formed by the doctor is wrong as normally the hyoid bone gets fractured in case of strangulation. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no reason for the applicant to commit murder of his sister and show it to be a case of suicidal death. Learned counsel has also placed much reliance on the statement of PW-1/SI Rajesh Kumar Yadav who has stated that it appeared from the circumstances that applicant had committed murder of the deceased person after strangulating her and tried to show it to be a case of hanging. The dead body of the deceased was found touching the floor from her back only. Her body was found about two and half feet suspended to the wooden hanger, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 16.5.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 19.8.2025, two witnesses have been examined and the third witness has been called for examination. The status report also indicates that cognizance of the said case was taken on 25.7.2023 after committal and the charge was framed on 18.9.2023. 11. The perusal of the postmortem report indicates that there are several other injuries on the body parts of the deceased, which remain unexplained. 12. 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. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 14. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 15. 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. 16. 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 :- 22.8.2025 Vikas/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad