Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107559 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50458 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramautar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ehtesham Akhtar,G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ehtesham Akhtar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.765 of 2023, under Sections 364, 201 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Khurja Nagar, District - Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 4. The FIR was instituted on the basis of abscond report filed by the informant regarding the missing of father of the informant since 08.09.2023. Subsequent to it, the investigation was taken up and the Investigating Officer arrested the applicant along with co- accused persons Ravindra @ Golu on 09.09.2023 at about 06:45 P.M. Subsequent to it, at the pointing out of both the accused persons, dead body of the deceased person was recovered. A scooty was also recovered along with a mobile phone of Realme Company on the next morning. 5. As the said FIR was instituted on 10.09.2023 at 06:01 A.M., learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is ante- time as it mentions the recovery of a scooty at 10:20 A.M. The applicant and the accused persons have been arrested on 09.09.2023 at 06:45 P.M. and subsequent to it, the said recovery has been made. It implies that the said recovery was made on 10.09.2023 at 10:20 A.M. which is subsequent to the institution of the FIR i.e. 06:01 A.M. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it is ironical that the very same memo of recovery indicates the recovery of a mobile phone of Realme Company at 06:05 A.M. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail. Learned counsel stated that it is true that the prosecution evidence is complete and the statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded as such, trial at is conclusive end. There is no possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence, whatsoever. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.09.2023. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the said anomaly was typographical error regarding the time. The correct time was 10:20 P.M. not 10:20 A.M. and the said fact has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer in the case diary that he inadvertently entered the time to be 10:20 A.M. in place of 10:20 P.M. The trial at is conclusive end. It will not be fair to intervene and grant bail, at this stage. 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 that too before the statement of the victim is recorded. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the trial at is conclusive end and without expressing any opinion on the said discrepancy of time of recovery of scooty and in light of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 CS/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad