Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132955 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21577 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari,Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sahaswan, District- Badaun, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites in the year 2016, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of a motorcycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 10.06.2021. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant had called the son of the informant and informed that his wife has left for his house, but when she did not reach his house till the evening of 5 PM, as such, after getting suspicion, the son of the informant- Kaptan is stated to have come to the house of the applicant and inquired about the incident and he found that applicant and family members had left the house in a hurry. The informant suspected that his daughter has been put to death by the applicant and his family members and her dead body has been concealed somewhere. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved and no injury was found on the body of the deceased person. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it is a clear cut case of false implication as the dead body of the deceased person is stated to have been recovered on the pointing out of the father of the applicant, as such, applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The offence, if any, may be attributed to be committed by the father of the applicant. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2021 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant absconded from his residence, and the deceased's body was recovered from the agricultural field where the applicant and his family members used to work. In view of this conduct, the applicant is not entitled to be granted bail. 8. This Court had called for status of trial vide order dated 01.07.2025. As per the status report, seven witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end. 9. 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. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that seven witnesses have been examined and the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the father of the applicant from the agricultural field where the applicant his family members used to work and applicant's absence at the time of arrival of the son of the informant-Kaptan and also taking into consideration the post mortem report whereby mud was found in the trachea of the deceased person 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. 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 :- 6.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad