HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24063 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, 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.06 of 2025, under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Khairgarh, District Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge her on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. She is the wife of the deceased person. It is true that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant, but she has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 16.1.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she 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 had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the motive is clear as she was having illicit relationship with her nephew Govind. 6. It is also informed by learned counsel for the informant that statement of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajendra Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilendra Yadav, G.A. Smt Roshani .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 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 had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling and the trial being at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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 1, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 24063 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad