Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138477 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53176 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Autar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akansha Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma,Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hari Shankar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of the informant to oppose this application. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Shivali, District - Kanpur Dehat, 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 about ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings and at that time, he has not whispered a single word against the applicant or any other family members, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no particular demand of dowry as per the statement of the informant. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2023, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within ten hours of the incident. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 08.08.2025. As per the said report, five witnesses have been examined to date. 10. 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court 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 as five witnesses have already been examined, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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. 14. 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:- 13.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad