HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56107 of 2023 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ramnath, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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.128 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Bharthana, District-Etawah with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and the trial is moving at a snail's pace, as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 27.04.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant that too nearly about one year after the marriage and the trial is at its conclusive, as such, he is not entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Ram Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ramnath Anurag .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 07.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, six witnesses have been examined. 7. 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. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the trial being at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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. September 8, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 56107 of 2023 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad