Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139594 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55939 of 2023 Applicant :- Radhika Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chaman Aara,G.A.,Harish Chandra,Shabista Parveen,Sumit Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anmol Kumar Dubey, holding brief of Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Shabista Parveen, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, 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 Case Crime No. 388 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha/J.P. Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has next stated that the trial is moving at snail's pace and there is likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. 5. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 27.06.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused. There is a recovery of a fire arm weapon on the pointing out of the applicant and the trial is moving ahead as six witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end, as such applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 29.07.2025, six witnesses have been examined to date. 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. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. 9. The Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, 2025 INSC 974, has categorically reinforced that the bail orders engrave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end and cause of death being gun shot injury sustained by the deceased person and also there being recovery of a fire arm weapon on the pointing out of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and 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 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. 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. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad