Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139536 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22407 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Mishra,Divyanshu Chaudhary,Mohd. Abrar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sahdev Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Abrar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sahdev Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case No. 556 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Karari, District - Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for bail on the ground of period of incarceration of the applicant as he is in jail since 17.06.2023, as such, he is incarcerated for more than two and half years. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The applicant has 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. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within a reasonable time. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The applicant being her husband is the main accused person, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. 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 on 30.07.2025. As per the said report, out of seven witnesses, six witnesses have been examined to date, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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. 12. 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 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad