HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18230 of 2024 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 264 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is admitted by the informant, father of the deceased person that the FIR was instituted after consultation and vague and plain allegations have been made in the FIR. The trial is not moving on as such there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. 6. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.11.2023 and he has been incarcerated for more than one year and nine months. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gulzari Lal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) application on the ground that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and being husband of the deceased person, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report dated 12.08.2025 has been submitted by the concerned trial court. As per the said report, six witnesses have been examined to date and the trial is at its conclusive end. 9. The Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 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. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the trial is at its conclusive end and taking into account the period of incarceration, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 1, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 18230 of 2024 2 Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad