Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139534 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24139 of 2024 Applicant :- Rammilan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Behari Yadav,Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Tripurari Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2021, under Sections 498-A & 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Ghosi, District - Mau, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted 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 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The trial is at its conclusive end as there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence and he is not a flight risk. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.05.2021, 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. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has 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 08.08.2025. As per the said report, the case is fixed for final argument, 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. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the husband of deceased and she has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application 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 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. 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 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad